Builders yard accessible only via estate road serving nearby housing estate – Council not disputing lawfulness of use but concerned about perpetuation of current traffic level – Permission refused for erection of large building for storage and servicing purposes – Inspector upholding refusal on ground that proposal would consolidate current adverse traffic conditions – Meaning of “consolidate” in planning context
The appellant was the owner of a builders yard and contractors depot in Torrington. It was located on the edge of a large housing estate and shared a boundary with the grounds of a primary school. Sole access to the site was afforded via a residential estate road leading from a narrow stretch of a through road which itself narrowed significantly as it approached the site. Despite the view of the highway authority that the site was entirely unsuitable for its current use, the lawfulness of that use was never put in issue by the council. In 1992 temporary consent was given for the erection of a 50 m2 building to serve as a service, repair and storage depot, such consent being given on the understanding that the owner intended to relocate. Use of the building for those purposes continued, however, after expiry of the consent in 1994. In 1996 the owner applied for permission to erect a 275 m2 building to serve the same purposes. Following a refusal of that application on highway grounds, the owner appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment. In dismissing the appeal the inspector, having accepted the council’s finding that increasing the size of the building would at the very least maintain the level of traffic to and from the site, endorsed the opinion of the council that the proposed development would serve to “consolidate” a level of traffic which, contrary to the provisions of the local development plan, was already impacting adversely on the residential character and amenity of the area. That decision was challenged by the owner primarily on the ground that the inspector could not logically have reached that conclusion once he had accepted that the development (with appropriate conditions) would not necessarily increase or intensify the level of traffic .
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. As a matter of planning usage the prospect of a harmful state of affairs being consolidated arose as a material consideration where the effect of the proposed development would be to remove or diminish the possibility of amelioration in the course of time. There was accordingly no need for the authority to show that the proposed building would bring about a higher level of traffic. It was a necessary corollary that the economic arguments advanced by the owner in support of the proposal served only to justify the council’s concern that the adverse impact would be consolidated.
2. Since the issue was one of consolidation the inspector could not be criticised for failing to make a lesser of two evils comparison between current traffic levels and the levels to be expected if the development were to be permitted.
Mark Lowe QC (instructed by Toller Beattie, of Barnstaple) appeared for the appellant; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondents, Torridge District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
