Stephen Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

Stephen Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

The inspector unfairly failed to determine the appeal independently of the APO, who exercised professional judgment she was not qualified to make. The process was not fair, as the APO's evaluative assessment and recommendation provided the inspector with a powerful steer, undermining the requirement for independent decision-making by the appointed inspector.

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 / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; inspector's decision quashed
Legal Topics
Delegation of Decision Making, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Review, Planning Appeals, Visual Amenity, Site Visit Procedures
Administrative Law Planning Law Delegation of Decision Making Procedural Fairness Statutory Review Planning Appeals Visual Amenity Site Visit Procedures

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 13 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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector unfairly failed to determine the appeal independently of the APO, who exercised professional judgment she was not qualified to make. The process was not fair, as the APO's evaluative assessment and recommendation provided the inspector with a powerful steer, undermining the requirement for independent decision-making by the appointed inspector.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; inspector's decision quashed

Orders

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