Developers appealing against council’s refusal of planning permission – Inspector recommending granting of planning permission – Secretary of State for the Environment adopting inspector’s recommendation – Whether inspector failing to consider whether proposed development premature in relation to emerging local plan – Council applying to quash decision of Secretary of State
In 1994 the third respondent appealed against a refusal of planning permission to develop a site of 18.61 ha of Valley Road, Peacehaven, East Sussex. At that time the development plan consisted of the adopted Peacehaven and Telscombe Local Plan (1986) and the East Sussex Structure Plan 1991. The Secretary of State upheld the recommendation of the inspector that the appeal should be dismissed. Subsequently, the second and third respondents applied for outline planning permission for residential development for a maximum of 113 dwellings, together with associated infrastructure and open space on the site. The applicants, Lewes District Council, refused the application. At the subsequent public inquiry, the council submitted that the proposed development was premature in relation to the emerging local plan, namely the first district-wide local plan for the district of Lewes. It was submitted that if planning permission was granted for the appeal site, it would materially prejudice the outcome of the local plan process by predetermining decisions about the scale and location of development, which ought properly to be taken in the local plan context. The council was concerned that it would undermine the strategy to refocus development away from the over developed coastal belt. The council relied on government advice in relation to the question of prematurity as contained in paras 46 to 49 of PPG 1. The Secretary of State accepted the inspector’s recommendation that planning permission should be granted. The council appealed.
Held The application was allowed.
Although it was surprising that there was no reference, either in the inspector’s report or in the Secretary of State’s decision letter, to the criteria or considerations contained in para 47 of PPG 1, that was not fatal if it was clear that they had been taken into account. However, the inspector, and through him the Secretary of State, had failed to take into account as material considerations the effect of the scale and location of the proposed development on the emerging local plan. He had failed to consider whether those material considerations would predetermine decisions about the scale and location of the new development which ought properly to be taken in the development plan context as required by para 47 of PPG 1. Since it could not be concluded that, had the inspector taken those material considerations into account, he would have come to the same conclusion, the decision of the Secretary of State was quashed.
Keith Lindblom QC (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London agents for solicitor to Lewes District Council) appeared for the appellants; Alun Alesbury (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Michael Fitzgerald QC and Adam de Voghelaere Parr (instructed by Argles & Court, of Maidstone) appeared for the second respondents, Chavier Estates Ltd; the third respondent, Peacehaven Valley Owners Ltd, did not appear and was not represented.
