Applicant’s business expanding – Application for planning permission to expand premises – Application refused – Inspector refusing appeal – Applicant seeking judicial review of inspector’s decision – Whether inspector’s decision unreasonable – Application dismissed
The applicant company applied for planning permission for land and premises at Orchard Farm, Salford Priors, Evesham (the site). The application related to proposed extensions to existing buildings to provide extra cold and other storage facilities, loading bays and additional office space, the formation of a new vehicular entrance and driveway and the use of existing and proposed buildings for storage, grading, processing, packing and distribution of agricultural produce with ancillary accommodation and facilities. It was proposed that access to the site would be moved from Evesham Road to School Road, Stratford on Avon District Council refused the application. The applicant’s appeal was refused. The inspector identified the main issue as whether the development would lead to an over-intensive use of the site thereby harming the appearance of the area and/or prejudicing highway safety and the quality of life for residents. He estimated that the application would lead to more than seven times as much floorspace as existed by 1989 and noted that the turnover had increased eightfold since the increase in turnover since 1989. He concluded that harm to the surrounding area would result from the development in clear conflict with emerging and adopted development plan policies. He also concluded that highway safety and environmental problems would be likely to result from any change of access. The applicant applied to quash the inspector’s decision.
Held The application was refused.
1. The inspector was entitled to consideration of the effects of the proposed development both in the short and long term and to the past and future growth and the existing potential for expansion and intensification as the basis for the further expansion and intensification if planning permission was granted. Accordingly the inspector could not be criticised for the material considerations he had taken into account.
2. The inspector had considered both the questions of the business outgrowing the site and the availability of other sites. His conclusion that there were other sites available was made independently of, and was not used to justify, the refusal to grant planning permission.
3. Although the inspector had miscalculated the increase of traffic which the proposed development would create that did not invalidate his decision. It was one of many material factors which he had taken into account and if he had taken the correct figure into account he would have arrived at the same conclusion.
Harry Wolton QC (instructed by Davies & Partners, of Gloucester) appeared for the appellant; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; Timothy Straker QC (instructed by the solicitor to Stratford upon Avon District Council) appeared for the second respondents.
