Planning permission for further development of tourist centre refused — Inspector dismissing appeal — Application under section 288 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 — Inspector’s reasoning obscure — Inspector failing to understand viability issues
In 1991, the claimant was granted outline planning permission to develop the Rheged Discovery Centre, a multi-purpose business and tourist facility. Permission was regularly renewed, and the development opened in 2000. In the same year, a further application for planning permission was made for retail development and for the use of the existing cinema and theatre for live performances. It was claimed that, without such uses, the centre would be uneconomic and would have to close, with a resultant loss of jobs. Planning permission was subsequently refused. The claimant appealed to the Secretary of State.
The inspector dismissed the appeal on the following grounds: (i) the centre was not economically viable, and extending planning permission would not have altered the situation; (ii) the proposed retail outlets would have had unacceptable consequences for the local town centre, contrary to local planning policies; (iii) the provision of evening entertainment at the centre would have attracted custom away from, and thereby discouraged investment in, the local town centre; (iv) the enhanced facilities would have attracted visitors to the centre, to the detriment of other tourist attractions; (v) the loss of jobs would have had a relatively minor effect; and (vi) the scheme would have caused an undesirable increase in travel by private vehicles.
The claimant applied to quash the decision, arguing that the inspector had, inter alia: (i) either failed to consider viability test VT3 or, if she had considered it, failed to provide adequate, or any, reasons for rejecting it; (ii) taken into account an immaterial consideration by concerning herself with feasibility studies and alternative ways in which planning permission could have been implemented; and (iii) failed adequately to deal with the consequences of closure of the centre, in particular the consequent job losses.
Held: The claim was allowed.
Although some of the inspector’s conclusions were defensible, such as the impact of a retail development scheme and the effect of the expanded evening entertainment, parts of her decision letter were obscure and difficult to follow. Her reasoning with regard to the viability test did not support the test that she eventually adopted, and it appeared, overall, that she failed fully to understand the issues under discussion. Her concerns with feasibility studies and methods of implementation and construction were poorly reasoned and inadequately explained. It was not possible to conclude whether she had sufficiently considered the consequent job losses, but the failure of her decision letter adequately to indicate her reasoning on the issue was, in itself, a reason for quashing the decision.
Andrew Gilbart QC (instructed by Dickinson Dees, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne) appeared for the claimant; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants, Eden District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
