Local plan prohibiting “as far as practicable” proposals for direct access to major roads outside built-up areas – Applicant contending that alternative access to site for new house not practicable because intervening land held by another developer – Inspector concluding that applicant’s difficulty matter of personal circumstances – Whether inspector failed to have proper regard to material consideration – Appeal dismissed
The appeal site was located near the northern edge of the village of Pawlett in Somerset lying to the west of the A38 which was designated as a county road. The owner applied for outline planning permission to build a single detached house with direct access from the A38 at a point just beyond the Pawlett built-up area. The relevant local plan, which substantially reproduced the provisions of PPG 13, required new developments to be “compatible with the existing transport infrastructure” and directed planning authorities to seek to ensure that access was as far as practicable not derived directly from national, primary or county routes outside a built-up area. Following a refusal of permission by the Sedgemoor District Council the owner appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment whose inspector upheld the refusal on the ground that the proposal would cause a significant increase in highway danger. In his representations to the inspector the owner explained that, with physical obstacles to the north and west of the site, alternative access to the highway system could not be achieved without appropriate rights over an area of undeveloped land (the neighbouring site) which separated the appeal site from a minor road to the south. The inspector was further reminded that the council, in granting permission for a housing development on the neighbouring site, had refused to impose a condition which would have secured such rights for the benefit of the appeal site. Referring to the question of alternative access the decision letter merely observed that that issue was a matter between the two owners rather than one germane to the appeal. The owner’s appeal from the inspector’s decision was dismissed by the judge and the owner appeal to the Court of Appeal contending that the presence of the words “as far as practicable” required the inspector to treat alternative access as a material consideration and accordingly he should not have dismissed the owner’s representations on that issue without giving adequate and intelligible reasons for doing so.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. To be material, the question had to raise planning considerations and not ones of purely personal circumstances: see Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc [1985] AC 661. On the facts before him the inspector was entitled to treat the issue of alternative access as going to personal circumstances because there was no evidence of what negotiations, if any, had taken place between the two owners.
2. If such evidence had been given, and had disclosed no practical alternative to the proposed point of access, it would have been incumbent upon the inspector to weigh the perceived highway danger against the prospect of leaving the appeal site sterile, the latter being a true planning consideration.
Marc Willers (instructed by Battens, of Yeovil) appeared for the applicant; Natalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondents, Sedgemoor District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
