The High Court decision in Pratt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] confirms that an inspector is not required to determine factual matters which the claimant has not proven on the balance of probabilities.
The case concerned a judicial review of an inspector's dismissal of an appeal, dealt with by written representations, against the local planning authority's refusal to approve a change of use of a barn from agricultural to residential use under Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. The Local Authority had rejected the application on the basis that it was not clear that the site was being used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit on the relevant date given some contrary evidence, and given that it was within the planning site of a fishing lake which was private recreational use (and which the claimant had confirmed in their application for permission for the lake that they did not carry out any agricultural operations).
The Court in dismissing the judicial review found that the inspector was not bound to determine all factual matters in that the Local Authority could refuse an application on the basis of lack of information, and so could an inspector. The inspector had correctly stated that the burden of proof was on the claimants to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal complied with the conditions and restrictions of Class Q. The inspector's reasons, in that there was a lack of evidence to show that the land was being used for agriculture or a trade or business, were sufficient and there was no difficulty in understanding the decision. Additionally, the Court found that it had not been incumbent on the inspector to ask for more information regarding unexplained aspects of the factual situation.
