Inspector allowing respondents’ appeal against refusal of planning permission – Inspector finding material considerations justifying departure from development plan – Applicants seeking to quash inspector’s decision – Application dismissed
The second, third, fourth and fifth respondents applied for planning permission for a development, comprising of the demolition of one dwelling and the erection of four dwellings, on land in Biddenham, Bedford. Bedford Borough Council (the applicant), refused outline permission on the ground that the development did not accord with the structure plan, the relevant development plan and the emerging local plan policies for the area which sought to restrain development on open land beyond the village boundaries. The applicant also concluded that the development would set an unacceptable precedent for such development in the locality. The inspector allowed an appeal by the respondents. The applicant sought to quash the inspector’s decision pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The applicant submitted that only two grounds had been identified by the inspector as material considerations justifying a departure from the development plan: (i) the isolated and under-utilised parcel of land would be brought into beneficial use by the development; and (ii) the development would not cause any significant harm to the surrounding area. The applicant submitted that the inspector’s decision was perverse, particularly in the light of matters under consideration for and against development, and demonstrated a misunderstanding of the purpose of the development plan, contrary to section 54A of the Act.
Held the application was dismissed.
Reading the decision letter as a whole, the inspector had given proper effect to section 54A of the 1990 Act. He was entitled to conclude that the development of the parcel of land would produce planning gain, without any significant disadvantage to the surrounding area. That was a material consideration and whether such a consideration justified departure from the development plan was a matter for the inspector’s planning judgment. The inspector had failed to deal expressly with the issue of precedent in relation to open land development, however, the applicant had not suffered any prejudice as a result. The applicant had more than adequate material in the decision letter to determine how the present decision could be applied to future applications.
Harriet Murray (instructed by the solicitor to Bedford Borough Council) appeared for the applicants; Michael Bedford (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister