Connolly v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWCA Civ 1059

C’s neighbour had wished to obtain planning permission for the alteration of the sides of their property The local authority did not grant the neighbour permission C’s neighbour then applied for planning permission for the alterations the local council would be willing to grant (which was for the north side of the property only) but the local council refused permission again. The neighbour appealed this refusal to a planning inspector. The planning inspector was only aware of the first plan to alter both sides of the property C’s appeal was allowed in the Court of Appeal where it was decided that the planning inspector’s decision should be quashed.

Whether a material mistake about the planning history rendered the inspector’s decision unfair, where the affected neighbours were not responsible for the omitted information supplied by the authority.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conclusion that the inspector’s decision was affected by unfairness arising from a material mistake about the planning history. The local authority had undertaken to supply the relevant history but omitted its response to a materially similar proposal. The affected neighbours were not responsible for that failure. Rix LJ applied the fairness-based approach to established factual mistakes rather than treating the challenge as a request to redecide planning merits. The attempted late reliance on a different, unpleaded case did not displace the conclusion. The result preserved the quashing of the inspector’s decision and required lawful reconsideration on the proper factual basis.

In the case of Connolly v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWCA Civ 1059, it was found that a planning inspector’s decision to provide planning permission could be quashed given they were under the incorrect impression they obtained the entire planning history of the site.

Connolly applies the fairness-based treatment of a material mistake of fact to planning procedure. The crucial omission concerned the planning history placed before the inspector, not a general entitlement for neighbours to secure the outcome they prefer. It complements E v Home Secretary by showing how an apparently complete official account may mislead a decision-maker. Procedural obligations, responsibility for the error and its materiality must all be examined. The court should not be asked merely to substitute a new planning judgment.