Claimant appealing against council’s refusal to grant planning permission for extensions to travelodge – Inspector concluding “very special circumstances” insufficient to overcome inappropriate development in green belt – Secretary of State adopting inspector’s conclusions and dismissing appeal – Whether Secretary of State introduced new test for travelodge provision – Whether Secretary of State erred in failing to consider granting lesser permission – Appeal dismissed
Granada Hospitality Ltd (the claimant) sought planning permission to erect a 20-bedroom extension to an existing travelodge at Heston Service Area (westbound), and a 35-bedroom extension to the same travelodge (eastbound). The second respondent council refused permission and the claimant appealed. An inquiry was held. In his report, the inspector considered the eastward extension and reported that, in contrast to the westward extension, “its effect on openness and visual impact would be slight”. The inspector acknowledged that “there was an excess of demand for rooms over availability”. However, he went on to find that “there was no convincing evidence that this demand has not been or could not be met in the future by existing accommodation providers in the area. Some evidence was given that obtaining accommodation in the area is difficult. But that does not amount to compelling very special circumstances for inappropriate development in the green belt”. The inspector further found that “there is also no evidence that this section of the M4 has an abnormally high incidence of driver fatigue such as to warrant particular provision of overnight accommodation”.
The first respondent Secretary of State adopted the inspector’s conclusions and dismissed the claimant’s appeal. The claimant sought to quash the Secretary of State’s decision, pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It was submitted, inter alia: (i) that the inspector and, therefore, the Secretary of State introduced a new test for additional travelodge provision, namely the need to show an increased level of accidents due to driver fatigue before such an extension could be granted; and (ii) having found that the eastbound extension’s “effect on openness and visual impact would be slight”, the Secretary of State erred in failing to consider whether planning permission could have been granted for that extension in its own right.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
1. The inspector was not introducing a new test. The general link between fatigue and accidents was a general matter that had been raised. The inspector was responding to those issues in the context of whether “very special circumstances” had been established.
2. Applying Wheatcroft (Bernard) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1980) 43 P&CR 223, it would have been open to the Secretary of State to have considered granting a lesser permission, even though that matter was not raised by the claimant. However, he was not obliged to do so. The lawfulness of doing it could not be translated into unlawfulness for not doing it.
John Pugh-Smith (instructed by Dibb Lupton Alsop) appeared for the claimant; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
