Applicant appealing against refusal of planning permission – Inspector refusing appeal – Whether inspector misunderstood highway authority’s position on provision of passing places – Whether inspector reached conclusion without requisite technical evidence – Whether inspector in breach of natural justice – Appeal dismissed
The applicant applied for planning permission for the construction of three dwellings to be erected at land adjacent to 47 Hurst Lane, Cumnor, Oxford (the site). The application was subsequently amended to the erection of two dwellinghouses. The Vale of White Horse District Council, the second respondents, refused the application. The applicant appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The inspector determined the appeal by way of written representations in a decision letter dated May 28 1997. The inspector set out in the letter the main issue which was whether Hurst Lane, which would serve the site, was adequate to serve traffic likely to be generated by the development proposed. He also considered the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the locality.
The inspector concluded that the issues could be decided in favour of the applicant. However, he dismissed the appeal on the basis of the inadequacy of the provision of passing places on Hurst Lane. The applicant appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the inspector misunderstood the highway authority’s position on the provision of passing spaces, that the inspector had reached a conclusion on which there was no supporting technical evidence and upon which he was not an expert, and that the inspector was in breach of natural justice in failing to give the parties an opportunity to comment on the capacity of Hurst Lane.
Held The appeal was refused.
1. The inspector had not misunderstood the highway authority’s conclusions on the original application for three houses that if the development was to be approved then it should be conditional upon the provision of passing places. It was clear from the letter that the inspector had understood that the highway authority’s view related to the original application.
2. The inspector was entitled to form his own view about whether the lane was adequate for the development and he had not been required to have technical evidence. That was in accordance with the well established principles of the functions of an inspector.
3. The inspector was not in breach of natural justice. There was enough explanation in the conclusion to the original application to have caused the applicant to be aware that it was a potential difficulty that the highway authority thought passing places were necessary, albeit in relation to the original proposal. Therefore the applicant was not entitled to discount it as something which the inspector would not consider and, accordingly, there was no unfairness.
Kevin Leigh (instructed by Cole & Cole, of Oxford) appeared for the appellant; Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondents, Vale of White Horse District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
