Applicants applying for outline planning permission for residential development – Inspector refusing and finding that proposal going beyond areas allocated for such development in local plan – Applicants appealing to Secretary of State – Whether Secretary of State erred in failing to consider imposing a condition to overcome objections to proposed development – Application dismissed
In 1993 South Cambridgeshire District Council’s local plan allocated three areas in the village of Caldecote for residential development. Areas defined as Caldecote 1 and 2 were proposed as sites for residential development and Caldecote 3 for open space. The applicants first made an application for outline planning permission in 1994 for residential development of land they owned, which consisted of the majority of land at Caldecote 1, all the land at Caldecote 2 and part of Caldecote 3. The local planning authority resolved in favour of granting permission subject to certain agreements first being achieved. These agreements were not achieved and, accordingly, the 1994 application was never determined.
In 1997 the applicants made further applications for residential development; two for outline planning permissions for, effectively, the same site, and one for full permission for residential development in respect of part of Caldecote 2 and 3. Those applications were refused by an inspector. On appeal, the Secretary of State largely accepted the inspector’s recommendations. The appeals were dismissed on the grounds that they proposed residential developments that went beyond areas allocated for such development in the local plan, which would have conflicted with the development plan and harmed the countryside. Additionally, the imposition of conditions would not have overcome planning objections nor the identified harm.The applicants applied to quash the Secretary of State’s decision in respect of the outline planning applications only.
It was agreed that the essence of the Secretary of State’s decision was that there was no reason for refusing the outline permissions, save that the area developed should be limited to areas shown on the local plan for residential development, thus excluding an area referred to as the 3.7-acre site. It was submitted that in dismissing the appeals, the Secretary of State had failed to properly consider the imposition of a condition that would have overcome the ojections to the proposed development.
Held The application was dismissed.
The inspector had not failed to consider the practicality of imposing a condition to overcome the objections to development. He indicated, however, that it would have been inappropriate to impose a condition, as it would have changed substantially the basis upon which the applications had been made. The applicants, in evidence, had made it clear it was part of their intention to develop not only on Caldecote 1 and 2 but also on the 3.7-acre site. The objections to development could not have been overcome by the imposition of a condition. The refusal to impose a condition by the inspector and, subsequently, the Secretary of State could not be said to have been perverse.
Brian Ash QC (instructed by Eversheds, of Norwich) appeared for the applicants; Christopher Katkowski (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; the second respondents, South Cambridgeshire District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister