Applicant making seven applications to vary conditions attached to planning permission – Council refusing each application – Applicant appealing – Inspector dismissing appeals – Whether inspector erred by failing to address and provide reasons for each individual appeal – Application dismissed
In 1995, Tewkesbury Borough Council granted the applicant conditional planning permission for the “continued use of site and retention of two buildings, A and B, for use in connection with storage, reclamation, cleaning and processing for trade sales reclaimed building materials, architectural artefacts and fittings with the added use of building B for museum, craft workshops and display and exhibition for education purposes”. During 1998, the applicant made seven applications to vary certain of the conditions attached to the permission. Each application was refused by the council and consequently led to seven appeals. In considering the effect of the appeal proposals, the inspector took the view that some of the appeals raised related issues.
The applicant sought to quash the inspector’s decision to dismiss the appeals pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Relying on Bruschweiller v Secretary of State for the Environment and Chelmsford Borough Council [1994] EGCS 206; [1996] JPL 292, the applicant submitted that the inspector erred by failing to consider, reason and arrive at seven separate conclusions in respect of each of the seven appeals.
Held: The application was dismissed.
Bruschweiller (supra) did not present a formulistic approach as to how an inspector’s reasons should be set out. It supported the principle that an inspector’s primary task is to determine each appeal on its own merits. The inspector had considered the detrimental effects of each appeal and had listed them in her decision letter. She had also assessed the distinguishing features of each appeal and had given adequate reasons as to why each one should fail.
Ian Dove (instructed by Daniels Ferraby & Co of Tewkesbury) appeared for the applicant; Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents did not appear and were not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
