Town and country planning — Planning permission refused on appeal – Application to quash decision — Inspector referred to circular 15/84 on housing land supply — Five year land supply satisfied in the district — Whether inspector applied the right test — Whether inspector would have reached a different conclusion had he applied the right test
Charnwood Borough Council failed to decide an application for residential development within the prescribed period. The applicant appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment, the inspector held a local inquiry and then refused planning permission by a letter of October 13 1987. The inspector identified two issues: whether the proposed development would represent an unacceptable addition to Burton on the Wolds, the village in question, and its likely impact on the area.
The inspector considered paragraph 2 of annex B to circular 15/84 — Land for Housing — and concluded that in deciding whether there was a five year supply of housing land, a District should not be subdivided. He found that there was a five year supply of housing land in the District as a whole. This was an application under section 245 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to quash the decision of the Secretary of State by his inspector.
Held The inspector had misconstrued the circular; the decision to refuse planning permission must be quashed and the matter remitted to the Secretary of State. It is clear from paragraphs 8 and 12 of the circular that in preparing structure and local plans an area wider than a district may have to be considered when identifying a five year supply of housing land. Paragraph 19 of the circular advises that in determining the five year supply, a realistic view must be taken of the area to be considered, but adds that “normally this will be the whole of an administrative district”. However it warns that sometimes it may be more sensible to consider part only of a district, part of two or more districts or such areas as are used by the structure plan.
The inspector had been in error in only referring to paragraph 2 of annex B to the circular; he applied the wrong test. However this did not mean that his decision should be quashed if he would have come to the same result had he applied the correct test. As the Secretary of State had approved modifications to the structure plan in July 1987 that might be relevant, the inspector might have come to a different conclusion.
William Glover QC and Heather Pearce (instructed by Marron, Dodds & Waite of Leicester) appeared for the appellant; and John Laws (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.