Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor [2022] EWHC 3209 (Admin) (16 December 2022)

Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor [2022] EWHC 3209 (Admin) (16 December 2022)

The process was procedurally unfair because the Appeal Planning Officer, who was underqualified, exercised evaluative planning judgment on the merits of the appeal, providing a powerful steer to the inspector. Fairness required that the APO's role be limited to fact-finding and reporting, not judgment on the merits....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3209 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Stephen Smith; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: London Borough of Hackney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; inspector's decision quashed.
Legal Topics
Delegation of Decision Making, Procedural Fairness, Planning Appeals, Statutory Interpretation, Legitimate Expectation
Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review Delegation of Decision Making Procedural Fairness Planning Appeals Statutory Interpretation Legitimate Expectation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Smith

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

London Borough of Hackney

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector unlawfully delegated decision-making to an underqualified Appeal Planning Officer (APO)
  2. 2 Whether the process was procedurally unfair due to the APO's involvement in evaluative judgment
  3. 3 Whether there was a legitimate expectation that the inspector would personally conduct the site visit

Ratio Decidendi

The process was procedurally unfair because the Appeal Planning Officer, who was underqualified, exercised evaluative planning judgment on the merits of the appeal, providing a powerful steer to the inspector. Fairness required that the APO's role be limited to fact-finding and reporting, not judgment on the merits. The inspector's adoption of the APO's reasoning without independent evaluative input rendered the process unfair, warranting quashing of the decision.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; inspector's decision quashed.

Orders

  • Inspector's decision dismissing the appeal is quashed.
  • Appeal to be redetermined by a different inspector.