Primary shopping area – Application for change from retail to banking use which would result in 8% reduction in retail frontage – Whether percentages prescribed in draft plan conflicted with Department of the Environment guidance – Whether inspector entitled to find “significant” reduction of shopping frontage – Whether custom attracted by cash dispensers enhancing quality of shopping area generally
Located in a primary shopping area in Northampton, the appeal site, a 10m frontage, formed part of a 127m parade of which 92% was devoted to shopping use. The application was for consent to change of use from retail (Class A1) to banking (Class A2) the effect of which would be to reduce the shopping frontage of the parade to 84.25% of its total length. Following refusal by the borough council the applicants appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment, but were unsuccessful largely because of the importance attached by the inspector to a specific provision in the draft Northampton plan weighing against such change of use where the shopping frontage would fall “significantly” below 90% of the relevant larger frontage.
Before the High Court, the appellants contended, inter alia, that the inspector had wrongly allowed the provisions of the draft plan to prevail over the guidance found in PPG6 which, as he had noted, recognised that the presence of banks and other financial institutions could enhance the vitality and viability of town centres provided that these were not allowed to dominate primary shopping areas to the detriment of their retail function.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. On a close reading of the draft plan it was clear that the authors were purporting to give detailed effect to the relatively broad principles contained in PPG6; there was consequently no failure on the part of the inspector to follow the guidance.
2. The inspector could not be criticised for finding that a “significant” reduction in shopping frontage would occur even though the figure of 84.25% did not fall far short of the 90% proposed in the draft plan. The question was one of judgment with which the court would not interfere.
3. Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the inspector had given due weight to an undertaking by the applicant that, on obtaining the desired permission for the appeal site, they would ensure that their existing town centre premises would revert to shopping use. Although that would significantly increase A1 frontage in that location the inspector was entitled to conclude that such betterment of a secondary shopping area would not compensate for the apprehended detriment to the primary area under consideration.
4. While the visual drawbacks of the proposed cash dispensers were partly offset by the custom they would bring, the court could not upset the finding that an opportunity for the display of goods could be of interest to a wider range of shoppers.
Anthony Smith QC and Nadia Sharif (instructed by Hewitson Becke & Shaw, of Northampton) appeared for the appellants; Jonathan Karas (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second defendants, Northampton Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
