Hopkins Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
[2014] EWCA Civ 470
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
Any party to a planning inquiry is entitled to know the case it has to meet and to have a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions on that opposing case, and procedural unfairness which materially prejudices a party may justify quashing the inspector's decision. However, an inspector's rule 7 or rule 16 statement of main issues records only a provisional view: it does not bind the inspector to disregard evidence on other issues, and a party which fails to deal with an issue that is live on the evidence at the inquiry - including issues raised by third parties - cannot complain of unfairness when the decision rests on it.
Facts
Hopkins applied in July 2011 for outline permission for 58 dwellings on a field at the edge of Wincanton, which the district council refused; on Hopkins' appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector held a four-day inquiry in July 2012. Neither her pre-inquiry rule 7 statement nor her opening rule 16 statement identified the sustainability of the site's location or the character and appearance of the area among the main issues, but both matters were pursued in evidence - sustainability by the council and third parties, character and appearance by the hospital matron and local residents. The inspector dismissed the appeal relying in part on both matters, and the High Court quashed her decision for breach of natural justice on the ground that Hopkins had not had a reasonable opportunity to address issues which proved determinative.
Judgment Summary
The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State's appeal and set aside the quashing order. Jackson LJ formulated the governing principle of natural justice - every participant is entitled to know the case it has to meet and to a reasonable opportunity to deal with it - and derived six principles from the authorities, holding that a rule 7 or rule 16 statement reflects the inspector's view of the main issues only at the time it is made and does not remove other live issues from the arena. Since sustainability and character/appearance were clearly live issues on the evidence at the inquiry, Hopkins had a reasonable opportunity to deal with them and there was no procedural unfairness. Beatson LJ agreed, emphasising that Hopkins had chosen not to cross-examine the witnesses on those issues; Christopher Clarke LJ agreed with both judgments, and the case was remitted to the judge for Hopkins' remaining grounds.
Key Quotes
"Any party to a planning inquiry is entitled (a) to know the case which he has to meet and (b) to have a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions in relation to that opposing case."
— Jackson LJ, para 62(verbatim, verified against the judgment)
"A rule 7 statement or a rule 16 statement identifies what the Inspector regards as the main issues at the time of his statement. Such a statement is likely to assist the parties, but it does not bind the Inspector to disregard evidence on other issues. Nor does it oblige him to give the parties regular updates about his thinking as the Inquiry proceeds."
— Jackson LJ, para 62(verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
The first Court of Appeal-level statement of how natural justice operates at planning inquiries under the 2000 Inquiries Procedure Rules; Jackson LJ's six principles at para 62, reconciling the first-instance authorities reviewed in the judgment (Castleford, Tatham Homes, Poole), remain the settled framework for procedural-fairness challenges under section 288.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help