Claimant applying for planning permission for indoor riding arena – Council not granting permission – Claimant appealing against council’s non-determination of its application – Inspector finding proposal would impinge upon green belt and dismissing appeal – Claimant seeking to quash decision – Whether inspector failing to give adequate reasons for conclusions upon critical issues – Whether unfairness – Claim dismissed
The claimant operated a riding centre, which it sought to redevelop. In particular, it wished to build an indoor riding arena and outdoor manege. Belmont constructed the outdoor manege without planning permission and applied to the second defendant council for retrospective permission. It also sought permission for the indoor arena. The council did not grant permission and issued an enforcement notice in respect of the manege.
The claimant appealed against the council’s non-determination of its application and also against the enforcement notice. An inspector heard the appeals in February 1998. Unfortunately, after a good part of the evidence had been heard, the inspector became seriously ill. He was able to resume the inquiry by the end of the year but was unable to issue his report until June 1999.
The inspector recommended that permission be granted for the outdoor manege, subject to certain conditions, and that permission be refused for the indoor centre. In reaching his decision, he found that outdoor equestrian activity was the main focus of the centre and that an indoor arena would change that focus to “at best, one where the outdoor and indoor activity were of equal importance”. He concluded that the arena would be inappropriate development in the green belt. The Secretary of State agreed with the inspector, rejected the appeals and granted permission for the outdoor centre, subject to conditions.
The claimant applied for orders under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the Secretary of State’s decision to dismiss the appeals, relying upon section 288 in relation to the non-determination issue and section 289 in relation to the enforcement notice. It was submitted that the conditions attached to the permission for the outdoor manege were unreasonable, and that the inspector failed to give proper reasons for his conclusions on the indoor arena on four key issues, namely: (i) the relationship between indoor and outdoor activity; (ii) intensification of use; (iii) the nature of the claimant’s proposals to create a centre of excellence serving that sector of London; and (iv) the very special circumstances relied upon by the claimant to outweigh the policy presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt. The claimant also alleged maladministration, consisting of the inspector’s failure to keep a proper and contemporaneous record. It was submitted that the inspector’s failure to record detailed evidence in his report raised the question of whether he had been able to recall the evidence in sufficient detail, given his long absence due to illness.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The inspector did take the four key issues into account and gave intelligible and understandable reasons for his rejection of the claimant’s submissions on those issues. There was no unfairness. It was not the function of the inspector’s report to record every detail of the evidence. Since the inspector accurately summarised the parties’ cases and gave detailed reasons for his conclusions, there was no reason to suggest that he failed to recall any of the evidence properly.
John Taylor QC and Michael Druce (instructed by Reid Minty) appeared for the claimant; Philip Sales (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
