When is an objector not a “person aggrieved” by an appeal decision?

Published on
2 min read

In this case, the High Court decided that the claimants were not persons “aggrieved” under s.288(1)(b) of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 because they had not made objections or representations during the appeal procedure. The claimants did not therefore have standing to challenge an Inspector’s decision under s.288(1)(b).

In this case, the High Court decided that the claimants were not persons “aggrieved” under s.288(1)(b) of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 because they had not made objections or representations during the appeal procedure. The claimants did not therefore have standing to challenge an Inspector’s decision under s.288(1)(b).

An Inspector allowed an appeal against a refusal by Waverley Borough Council to grant outline planning permission for a residential (Class C3) development at a site near Farnham in Surrey. The claimants were occupants of properties adjoining the appeal site and challenged the Inspector’s decision under s.288(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (which allows a person aggrieved by an action on the part of the Secretary of State to challenge that action). It was contended by the defendant and the interested party that the claimants did not have standing to bring the application because they were not persons “aggrieved”.

The case of Walton v Scottish Ministers provides the leading authority on the meaning of the term “person aggrieved”. Paragraphs 86 and 87 of that judgement state that “persons will ordinarily be regarded as aggrieved if they made objections or representations as part of the procedure which preceded the decision challenged” except in circumstances such as where “an inadequate description of the development in the application and advertisement could have misled him so that he did not object or take part in the inquiry…”.

In this case, the claimants had written to the Council to object to the planning application, but had not written to the Inspector who determined the appeal, nor made any representation at the inquiry. The claimants sought to rely on parts of the Walton judgement other than paragraphs 86 and 87 in order to persuade the Court of a wider meaning of the term “persons aggrieved”.

However, the Court held that the term should be interpreted in accordance with paragraphs 86 and 87 and that, since the claimants had not made objections or representations during the appeal procedure, they did not have standing to challenge the Inspector’s decision.

This case highlights the importance for parties that may be affected by an appeal decision to actively engage in the inquiry process by making their own representations, even if they have already objected at the application stage.

(1) Crawford-Brunt (2) Hoctor Duncan v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & TT Developments Ltd

Mills & Reeve Sites navigation
A tabbed collection of Mills & Reeve sites.
Sites
My Mills & Reeve navigation
Subscribe to, or manage your My Mills & Reeve account.
My M&R
Register or login

Register or login Get all the benefits of MyM&R but registering or logging in ulla vehicula mauris mattis hendrerit fermentum. Etiam placerat hendrerit dapibus. Praesent ligula felis, eleifend sed odio quis, feugiat eros. Aliquam vitae felis fermentum, posuere nulla ut, maximus magna.

Staff intranet
Log in to the intranet
Client extranet
Log in to the extranet