North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Clover (1993) 65 P&CR 137
The point in plain English: A materially indistinguishable earlier planning decision can be a material consideration. A decision-maker may reach a different conclusion, but should confront the earlier decision and explain the departure where consistency is genuinely engaged.
What the Court of Appeal decided
An earlier Inspector had refused a dwelling on the same, slightly larger site after deciding that it lay outside the physical limits of the village. A later Inspector allowed a very similar proposal and reached the opposite view without addressing the earlier decision.
The Court of Appeal held that the earlier appeal decision was a material consideration. Consistency matters to developers, planning authorities and public confidence in the system. Like cases do not have to be decided alike, but where a later decision necessarily disagrees with a critical aspect of a materially indistinguishable earlier one, the decision-maker should weigh that earlier decision and give reasons for departing from it.
How to use North Wiltshire
The first question is always whether the earlier decision really is comparable. If the facts, policy or circumstances are materially different, the consistency principle may carry little or no weight.
See Planning Geek’s guides to material considerations and planning officer reports and reasons.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.