Sunday market — Recreational facilities — Whether market compromised recreational facilities on appeal site — Whether inappropriate retail use of green belt land — Whether overall situation amounting to very special circumstances justifying development in green belt — Inspector finding against applicants — Inspector’s decision upheld
In May 1992 the applicants began a Sunday market at the former Brooklands Aerodrome, Weybridge, Surrey, which had been developed for a number of purposes. They leased part of the runway for the market, conducted from metal-framed stalls let to individual traders. The stalls remained after each market. The land in question was an area intended to be included in the green belt.
Following the appeal hearing in April 1994, the inspector found that although the market had relatively little impact on the environment it compromised the aim of providing recreational facilities on the green belt; conflicted with the adopted proposals for the proposed green belt; and was an inappropriate retail use of land proposed for green belt designation in the first alteration to the local plan, which was at a very advanced stage. Under policy B10 in the local plan open air recreational uses were to be encouraged. This was an appeal by the applicants for an order that the decision letter be quashed arguing, inter alia, that the site was in an area suitable for public attractions and that the market activity had little permanent impact on the land. Further, the market itself could provide a function to many numbers of people attending each week for both shopping and recreation.
Held The application was refused.
1. In Vision Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] JPL 951, it was reiterated that if a proposed development was of an inappropriate nature in a green belt, it was one which by definition would cause harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
2. However, that was not determinative of the issue. It was then incumbent on the applicants to show that the advantages of the particular development in the particular circumstances outweighed the harm. That was a balancing exercise and one had to consider whether the overall situation amounted to very special circumstances that justified setting aside the normal presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt. If the harm was very slight, that in itself could be part of the very special circumstances.
3. Whether there were very special circumstances was a matter of planning judgment for the inspector. If an inspector had said, in his view, he did not see any special circumstances, then that would be the end of the matter. In the present case, the inspector found that while the market had little permanent impact on the land, and the land might remain in a derelict condition, the site fulfilled a green belt function of preventing the merging together of neighbouring towns of Byfleet and Weybridge.
The principal controversial issue canvassed was whether in aggregate there were special circumstances. The court rejected the argument that the applicants could not determine the basis on which the decision had been made and that such information had been denied. Every relevant fact was clearly in the mind of the inspector. The application failed.
Anthony Dinkin QC and Morag Ellis (instructed by Dawson Mason & Carr) appeared for the applicants; Timothy Straker (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; James Findlay (instructed by the solicitor to Elmbridge District Council) appeared for the second respondent.
