Applicant for planning permission for retail park – Secretary of State for the Environment calling-in application – Inspector recommending application be refused – Secretary of State refusing application – Whether “sufficient doubt” as to effect of proposal on town centre was proper ground for refusing permission – Appeal against decision allowed
The applicant and the third respondent applied for planning permission for retail parks in Cirencester. The applicant proposed a 7,085 sq m non-food retail development on land at Old Cricklade Road, Kingsmeadow, which was on the south east edge of the town. The proposal included a large unit for DIY goods, with four smaller units for electrical goods, furniture and furnishings, car accessories and carpets. The third respondent proposed a 9,290 sq m development at Watermoor, which was significantly closer to the town centre. Both applications were called-in by the Secretary of State, for determination by him. An inquiry was held between July 30 and August 15 1996. The inspector recommended that the applications be refused. The Secretary of State by a decision letter dated September 22 1997, accepted the inspector’s recommendation and refused the applications although he differed from the inspector in relation to certain conclusions.
The applicant appealed under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It was contended, inter alia, that the Secretary of State had not properly construed and applied PPG6 and structure plan policy S2 in employing a “sufficient doubt” test for the purposes of judging the issue of retail impact; or had not provided proper reasons for, first, applying a test not apparent in either government or structure plan policy and, second, applying a test not applied by the inspector.
Held: The application was allowed.
The Secretary of State had regarded the question of impact of the proposal on the character and viability of Cirencester town centre as an important issue, both at the time of the calling-in and when giving the decision. In particular he had weighed it in the balance along with conflicts with national planning policy against the benefits of the scheme, namely the length of car journeys and the improvement in public amenities. However, both the Secretary of State and the inspector had referred to “sufficient doubt” about the effects of the proposal on the town centre which had warranted particular attention to be paid to the effects without having reached a determination as to whether there would be a “likely impact”. Therefore the Secretary of State had not determined a key consideration and accordingly, the decision was flawed: see Sainsbury plc v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] JPL 651.
Keith Lindblom QC (instructed by Eversheds) appeared for the appellants; Alun Alesbury (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendants.
