Lord Luke of Pavenham v Minister of Housing and Local Government: CA 1968

The court considered a planning appeal where the Minister had departed from the the inspector’s decision. The plaintiff challenged the decision on the basis that the Minister had differed from the Inspector’s findings on ‘matters of fact’ under 17(5)(a) and therefore should have afforded the parties the opportunity to make representations.
Held: Lord Denning distinguished between ‘findings of fact’ and ‘expressions of opinion on the planning merits’. The Minister was entitled to differ from the Inspector’s opinion without notifying the parties under the Rules.
Davies LJ explained that the Inspector’s conclusions were not ‘findings of fact’; they were the reasons for his recommendations. If the Minister was of the opinion that the Inspector had wrongly applied planning policy to the proven and observed facts, then it was his function so to decide.

Judges:

Lord Denning

Citations:

[1968] 1 QB 172

Cited by:

CitedWind Prospect Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 5-Dec-2014
The claimant appealed against refusal of permission to erect a six turbine wind farm. The inspector had recommended the plan, but the defendant had decided against it.
Held: The claim failed. The planning inspector’s report is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.539761