Structure plan — Policy for strategic gap between two towns — Presumption against development save for compelling circumstances — Reliance by planning authority on policy — Whether inspector applied policy — Whether he gave reasons — Appeal by planning authority allowed
In October 1989 the first respondent, by his inspector, allowed an appeal by the second respondents, Margram plc, and granted planning permission for the construction of a petrol filling station, motorists’ restaurant and ancillary development on land on the south of the A264 between Horsham and Crawley, Sussex. The site is in an area of outstanding natural beauty and is in a gap between the two towns, which is designated as a strategic gap in the West Sussex Structure Plan where development should not be permitted save for compelling circumstances.
The appellant council appealed from a decision of Potts J, who had refused their application to quash the first respondent’s decision under section 245 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). The appellants contended that the inspector had failed to give any or adequate reasons for not applying the structure plan policy.
Held The appeal was allowed.
The duties of the inspector were twofold. First he must have regard to the structure plan and other material considerations pursuant to section 29(1) of the 1971 Act (section 70 of the 1990 Act); second to give reasons for his decision pursuant to para 7(1) of Sched 9 to the 1971 Act (para 8 of Sched 6 to the 1990 Act). The inspector adopted the wrong approach to the problem at the outset when he said that there was discussion at the inquiry as to the precise terms of the relevant policies, particularly in the light of the Secretary of State’s modifications to the structure plan, but that the inspector did not think it necessary to explore that in detail. The inspector ought to have considered whether compelling circumstances for allowing the development existed. The appellants placed reliance on a policy and were entitled to know whether, and if so why, that reliance was misplaced. The inspector had not had proper regard to the development plan, which was up-to-date and relevant.
Per Dillon LJ dissenting: there was a basic contradiction between the structure plan policy and the Secretary of State’s notice of approval. The inspector was entitled to ask whether significant harm would result to the policy objectives and gave cogent planning reasons for his answers.
E C Gransden & Co Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1986] JPL 519 applied.
David Keene QC and Michael Burrell (instructed by the solicitor to Horsham District Council) appeared for the appellants; and Robert Carnwath QC and Duncan Ouseley (instructed by McKenna & Co) appeared for the second respondent; and John Howell (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent the Secretary of State for the Environment
