High Court dismisses challenge to decision by planning inspector to use written representations for appeal over former pub

The claimant, Save the Fox and Hounds Campaign, is opposed to the former pub in in Great Wolford, Warwickshire being converted to residential use.

It also alleged in Save the Fox and Hounds Campaign Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2026] EWHC 4 (Admin) a failure by the inspector to consider material considerations.

The case was brought against the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Stratford on Avon District Council and Stephen Allely and Jackie Harding, who had owned the pub.

The pub was shut in 2016. There were four subsequent planning applications to change the use to purely residential use.

The proceedings before Sir Peter Lane related to the third application, which sought change of use to two dwellings.

The council had refused the application based on alleged heritage harm, which was judged not to be outweighed by the public benefits.

It was determined under section 319A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Act that the appeal be considered by way of written representations way of written representations. In December 2024 the inspector allowed the appeal, subject to conditions.

Sir Peter Lane said the first aspect of ground 1 was the contention that the inspector did not have any regard to the requests of the claimant and the parish council that the appeal should be determined by way of a hearing or public inquiry. 

The judge noted that paragraph 6.2.3 of the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England “makes it plain that it is only the views of the appellant and the local planning authority that must be considered, along with the Criteria for procedure determination, when deciding which form of procedure to follow in the appeal; although PINS is not prevented from considering the views of others.

“Paragraph 6.2.4 provides that where the choice differs from that of the LPA and the appellant, PINS will explain the reasons for the choice…..In the present case, there was no difference between PINS, the second defendant and the third defendants.”

The judge said counsel for the claimant had accepted hat there was no statutory duty to give reasons under section 319A for proceeding by way of written representations.

“It is also the position that there is no obligation founded in policy. As we have seen, paragraph 6.2.4 of the Procedural Guide requires reasons to be given for choosing a particular procedure, only where PINS's choice differs from that of the LPA or the appellant. That limitation is understandable. The appellant and the local planning authority are the parties to the appeal,” Sir Peter noted.

The judge said the claimant's case on lack of reasons had, therefore, to be advanced on the basis that the circumstances engaged a common law duty to give reasons for continuing with the written representations mode.

Sir Peter concluded that “there were no ‘particularly strong’ legal or policy reasons to warrant the imposition of a common law duty. On the contrary, I agree with the first defendant that to require reasons to be given for procedural decisions in such cases (where the legislative and policy scheme is silent) would place an unreasonable burden on Inspectors."

He added: “Standing back, it cannot be successfully maintained that there was something so untoward about the procedural or process aspects of the present case as to require the imposition of a common law duty to give reasons.”

Turning to a submission that the written representations procedure “keeps third parties largely in the dark about the process before the decision in the appeal is issued”, the judge said that was inherent in the procedure that has been ordained for written representations under the statutory and policy scheme.

“The appellant and the local planning authority are at centre stage. It is not for this court to interfere with that procedure and render it more burdensome, by calling down a duty to give reasons, regardless of the particular circumstances,” Sir Peter said.

The judge also rejected the claimant’s second ground, namely that the inspector failed to take account of the submissions and evidence of the parish council in its submission of 4 May 2024 regarding the viability of the pub. There had been offers to purchase it as a going concern.

However, Sir Peter noted that the decision letter expressly referred to the parish council’s submission.

The judge also said it was important to note that, in making his decision, the inspector had before him the officer’s report in respect of the fourth planning application.

The planning officer had advised the council’s planning committee that planning permission should be granted. “The Planning Officer conducted a detailed examination of the evidence and found the pub business not to be viable. He reached this conclusion, having regard to the representations of the Parish Council.”

The 2024 offers were discounted by the planning officer, whose report was referenced by the inspector and who could therefore be taken to have been fully aware of its contents. 

The planning officer had preferred a report on viability commissioned by the district council over one commissioned by the parish council.

Sir Peter added that the inspector was “plainly aware that the second defendant's planning committee had refused the fourth application on the basis of asserted continued viability. At paragraph 3 of his report, the Inspector noted how the second defendant and the Parish Council ‘remarked during the appeal, albeit belatedly, that another application for a residential change of use for the appeal building was refused on [a viability] ground.’. Upon becoming aware of the refusal, the Inspector sought further comments from the third defendants, who provided him with the Officer's Report.

“The claimant submits that, at this point, the Inspector should have sought the views of the claimant and the Parish Council. The claimant could, it is said, have commented on the weight to be placed on the 2024 offers to purchase the pub. I agree with [counsel for the Secretary of State] that this submission has no basis in authority or relevant procedural guidance. In any event, the claimant was aware of the fourth refusal and could have sought to make submissions on it to the Inspector, if it had wished.”