Summary of Legal Opinion (Anonymized)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerned a planning application by Company A for a detailed permission to construct an energy recovery facility ("ERF") at a site described in the opinion as being at The Town at The Port. The ERF would treat non-hazardous residual waste and generate electricity for export. Company A's application was refused by Company B (the waste planning authority) for three reasons, the first reason alleging that the site was not allocated in the Waste Plan and did not demonstrate sufficient advantages over allocated sites, contrary to Policies 1 and 4 of the Waste Plan. The second and third reasons related to landscape and heritage impacts respectively.

Company A appealed. The matter was recovered by the Decision-Maker, who appointed an Inspector. A public inquiry sat and the Inspector produced a report recommending that the appeal be allowed. The Decision-Maker accepted the recommendation and granted permission. The Appellant (a local campaigning group, hereafter "Appellant") and an associated local group were parties to the inquiry pursuant to the procedural rules and participated fully.

The Appellant sought judicial review in the High Court under the statutory review procedure in the planning legislation. Permission was granted on one ground (a reasons challenge concerning part of Policy 4(c) of the Waste Plan) and refused on two other grounds (an interpretation challenge and an irrationality challenge). At the rolled-up substantive hearing the High Court (Judge Lang) dismissed the claim, finding no failure to give adequate reasons on the part of the Inspector or the Decision-Maker. The Appellant obtained permission to bring the present appeal only on the narrower question of adequacy of reasons in relation to the proximity element of Policy 4(c).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Decision-Maker complied with the statutory duty to give adequate reasons for the decision concerning the application of Policy 4(c) of the Waste Plan, specifically its proximity principle element.
2. Whether the Inspector's and the Decision-Maker's reasoning adequately addressed the proximity principle in Policy 4(c) or instead left a principal and controversial issue without adequate explanation.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the Inspector and the Decision-Maker failed to give adequate reasons specifically in relation to the proximity principle component of Policy 4(c) of the Waste Plan.
• It argued that whether the ERF on the appeal site supported delivery of the Spatial Strategy and adhered to the proximity principle was a distinct, principal, and controversial issue that required separate reasoning from any factual showing of unmet need/capacity.
• The Appellant said it was insufficient for the Inspector merely to address the comparative advantages under Policy 4(a); the proximity principle required its own explicit treatment and explanation in the decision documents.
• The Appellant submitted that some passages in the Inspector's report suggested the Inspector treated the need/capacity issue as supplanting the proximity principle, which it said was a legal error or a failure of adequate reasoning.

Company B (Waste Planning Authority)'s Arguments

• Company B argued that the proximity principle and the Spatial Strategy were part of an interrelated set of policy objectives that had to be applied together when assessing a proposal under Policy 4.
• Company B relied on comparisons between the appeal site and the allocated sites (Allocated Site 1 and Allocated Site 2) to show that the allocated sites were preferable in terms of proximity to the main sources of residual waste and opportunities for co-location.
• Company B also advanced an updated need case, contending that the capacity shortfall identified in the Waste Plan was substantially reduced, which affected how Policy 4 should be applied in practice.

Company A's (Applicant's) Arguments

• Company A argued that the appeal proposal provided significant advantages over the allocated sites, including deliverability and scale, and therefore complied with Policy 4 overall.
• Company A submitted that, given the current flows of waste out of the plan area and the failure of allocated sites to come forward, the appeal proposal would reduce waste miles and contribute to self-sufficiency, thereby complying with the proximity principle when applied sensibly to real-world circumstances.
• Company A emphasised constraints affecting the allocated sites (including Green Belt and other environmental limitations) and relied on the Inspector's comparative analysis.

Other Parties / Interested Local Groups

• The local association aligned with the Appellant on landscape and heritage concerns; its principal submissions at inquiry focused on those matters rather than advancing a separate substantive position on the application of Policy 4(c) beyond supporting Company B's position.
• A local resident who gave evidence on behalf of the Appellant expressed that the appeal site was remote from the existing network of local waste facilities and relied on the allocated sites as alternatives.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Monkhill Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2020/2021] (reported in the opinion)	Explained the operation of the NPPF "tilted balance" (para.11(d)) where development plan policies are judged out-of-date and the consequential test for granting permission (whether adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits).	The Inspector considered that if Company B's evidence on need were preferred, the policies most important for determination would be out-of-date and the tilted balance under the NPPF would apply; the Inspector therefore analysed whether the Waste Plan remained up to date and ultimately treated the Plan as up to date, so did not apply the tilted balance.
R (Tesco Stores Limited) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2025] EWCA Civ 610 (as cited in the opinion)	Authority for the proposition that decision-makers should understand and apply policies with realism and common sense (as part of assessing adequacy of reasons and approach to planning matters).	The court relied on this principle to observe that the Inspector and the Decision-Maker had applied the Waste Plan policies with realism and common sense in the circumstances of the case when assessing Policy 4 and the Spatial Strategy.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court set out concise legal principles governing adequacy of reasons, emphasising (as summarised in the opinion) that reasons must address principal, important and controversial issues but need not canvass every material point; reasons should not create substantial doubt about legality and should enable unsuccessful opponents to understand how policy may affect future applications; decisions are to be read straightforwardly and a reasons challenge will only succeed where substantial prejudice can be shown.

The court then analysed how Policy 4 of the Waste Plan operates and how the parties had framed the relevant issues before the Inspector. Policy 4 permits non-allocated sites only if they meet criteria including (a) availability/advantages over allocated sites and (c) support for the Spatial Strategy and adherence to the proximity principle. The court emphasised that these criteria and the Spatial Strategy are interrelated: proximity, self-sufficiency and the waste hierarchy are elements of a single spatial strategy that must be applied together, and factual comparisons between a proposed site and allocated sites are an intrinsic part of that assessment.

The Inspector's report and the Decision-Maker's letter were analysed in sequence. The Inspector addressed the key question of whether the Waste Plan remained up to date. Having rejected Company B's updated need evidence as incompatible with maintaining that the Plan was up to date, the Inspector proceeded to determine the appeal by applying the Waste Plan policies (s.70(2) TCPA 1990 and s.38(6) PCPA 2004) rather than applying the NPPF tilted balance. The Inspector performed a detailed factual comparison between the appeal proposal and the two allocated sites (Allocated Site 1 and Allocated Site 2), examining deliverability, scale, Green Belt constraints, and likely impacts including waste miles and co-location potential.

The Inspector found that:

• Allocated Site 1 was small, unlikely to deliver the necessary capacity, and was in the Green Belt, giving the appeal site advantages (deliverability, non-Green Belt location, and ability to deliver benefits such as shore power and heat network).
• Allocated Site 2 presented a more complex comparison: it might perform better for the Spatial Strategy in terms of location, but it was also in the Green Belt and in a sensitive environmental location, with significant Green Belt harm that would carry substantial weight. The Inspector doubted whether very special circumstances could be demonstrated given the appeal site showed that provision could be made outside the Green Belt.
• Overall, the Inspector judged that the appeal proposal had clear advantages over the allocated sites in the relevant respects and thus complied with Policy 4 and Policy 1.

The court explained why the proximity principle in Policy 4(c) had been addressed: the Inspector accepted Company A's evidence that the appeal proposal would reduce waste miles relative to the existing position where much waste left the plan area, and the Inspector compared that outcome against the deliverability and harms associated with the allocated sites. The Inspector therefore applied the proximity principle in context — not solely by reference to a theoretical preference for south-east locations, but by balancing that factor alongside other elements of the Spatial Strategy and the real-world deliverability and harms (including Green Belt weight).

The court rejected the Appellant's contention that the Inspector and the Decision-Maker had treated the need/capacity issue as a substitute for separate reasoning on proximity. The court held that the Inspector and the Decision-Maker did address the proximity principle, albeit as part of an integrated comparison required by Policy 4: the proximity question was addressed both by considering likely reductions in waste miles and by weighing the potential advantages of allocated sites against the Green Belt and other harms that those sites would entail.

The court also considered the procedural context at the inquiry, including the statement of common ground between Company A and Company B which identified the comparative exercise between the appeal proposal and the allocations as central. The court found that the Appellant's evidence did not add a freestanding principal controversial issue beyond the comparisons already made by Company B and Company A; accordingly there was no separate, omitted principal issue requiring additional reasons.

Finally, the court concluded that read fairly and as a whole the Inspector's report and the Decision-Maker's decision letter provided adequate and ample reasons addressing Policy 4(c), the Spatial Strategy and the proximity principle. The court noted that issues of weight and planning judgment are for the decision-maker and that the Inspector had applied the policies with realism and common sense.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The court dismissed the appeal. It held that the Inspector and the Decision-Maker gave legally adequate reasons on the application of Policy 4, including the proximity principle in Policy 4(c), and that there was no failure to provide adequate reasons on a principal, controversial issue. The court accepted the Inspector's comparative analysis between the appeal site and the allocated sites and agreed with the Decision-Maker's adoption of that analysis.

Implications: The direct consequence is that planning permission granted to Company A by the Decision-Maker stands. The judgment emphasises that (a) Policy 4 requires a fact-sensitive, comparative assessment between unallocated proposals and allocated sites, and (b) decision-makers may lawfully apply the proximity principle as part of an integrated balancing exercise with other elements of the Spatial Strategy (including self-sufficiency and the waste hierarchy), taking account of deliverability and other planning harms (for example Green Belt considerations). The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal principle beyond confirming established rules on adequacy of reasons, the role of planning judgment and the need to read decision documents fairly and as a whole.

Disposition

The court's order dismissing the appeal was agreed by all three judges who heard the case: Judge [Last Name] (Judge Lang), Judge Nugee and Judge Moylan (as recorded in the opinion).