Application for planning permission – Planning permission refused – Whether sufficient basis for concluding proposal would act as precedent – Whether inspector’s reasoning sufficient – Appeal dismissed
The applicant sought planning permission to extend Beechnut House, Green Lea Wood, Frensham Hall Estate, Haslemere, by adding a floor to the existing bungalow. The property was beyond the green belt in an area of outstanding natural beauty and an area of great landscape value. The second respondents, Waverley Borough Council, refused planning permission on the basis that the proposal would conflict in a harmful way with various policies for the protection of the countryside and with their restrictive policy, HS7, for extensions to dwellings in the location. The applicant appealed. The inspector dismissed the appeal concluding that the proposal would act as a precedent for similar extensions and that such developments would, cumulatively, be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.
The applicant appealed to the High Court under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It was submitted, relying upon Poundstretcher Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1988] 3 PLR 69, that mere fear or generalised concern did not provide a sufficient basis for the inspector’s conclusions. It was further contended that the inspector had not given legally adequate reasons for his conclusions.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
1. Poundstretcher did not provide a precise legal test as to the nature of the material that an inspector must have before him when reaching a judgment on a precedent issue. The case merely recognised that mere fear or generalised concern was inadequate, and stated that an inspector must have some material upon which to base his view and that such material would vary from case to case.
2. It could not be concluded that there was no basis for the inspector’s conclusion that the proposal would act as a precedent for similar extensions in the area. His reasoning was clear and adequate and he had considered material that demonstrated more than a mere fear or general concern. The more obvious something was as a matter of judgment, the less likely it was that elaborate reasoning would be found, or that an inspector would feel a need to say it. The witness statement provided by the inspector, for the purpose of responding to and refuting the assertion that he had no evidence in relation to the issue of precedent, was to be ignored, since it was wrong for witness statements to be used to supplement or clarify the reasoning in a decision letter.
James Pereira (instructed by Shuttari Paul & Co, of Southall) appeared for the applicant; Michael Gibbon (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
