Green belt — Car parking — Special circumstances — Judge overturning decision by appellant Secretary of State to refuse respondent’s planning application for off-site airport car parking on green belt land — Whether evidence of compelling need for parking such as to amount to special circumstances outweighing harm of inappropriate development in green belt — Whether evidence that no alternative sites available — Appeal allowed
The respondent applied for temporary planning permission to use two sites in the green belt for five years as off-site car parking for users of Gatwick airport. The local planning authority backed the application, but the appellant Secretary of State called in the application under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
At the public inquiry, the inspector heard evidence that there was a need for the proposed car parking facility, which, according to the respondent, amounted to a very special circumstance that outweighed the harm that would be caused by inappropriate development in the green belt. Also before him were strategy documents produced by the airport operator, which, the respondent argued, showed that there would be a shortfall of parking space in the future, since available land at the airport would be required for other purposes. However, the inspector took the view that there was evidence of sufficient available space at the airport to meet its future parking requirements, and that, accordingly, there was no compelling need for extra car parking. He further considered that the respondent had failed to show, as planning policy required, that no alternative sites were available for the proposed car parks. The Secretary of State accordingly refused the application.
The respondent’s application under section 288 of the 1990 Act, to quash the decision was granted. The judge held that the inspector had failed to: (i) address the unchallenged expert evidence as to the existence of a shortfall in parking facilities; (ii) explain why he could not accept the evidence; and (iii) take account of the strategy documents, which set out the airport’s intentions and provided a reasonably dependable forecast as to what was likely to happen in the future. The judge concluded that the inspector had given inadequate reasons for his decision, and had disregarded a major part of the material before him. The Secretary of State appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The judge’s criticism of the inspector’s decision had been unjustified. The inspector had clearly grappled with the problem of parking shortages, and recognised that there might be pressure on parking in the future. However, there was evidence before him that there was land available at the airport sufficient to meet future parking needs. Although the strategy documents suggested that the airport operator had other plans for its spare land, the inspector had dealt with the point. He had been entitled to find that the operator’s plans could change, and that, since the land was presently available, there was no compelling need for off-site parking. Moreover, the possibility that there might be parking shortages in the future was of limited relevance. The inspector had also been entitled to find that even if parking land were needed, the respondent had failed to discharge the burden of showing that no alternative sites outside the green belt were available for it. The inspector’s decision was detailed and well-reasoned, and the judge had had insufficient grounds for setting it aside.
Clive Newberry QC (instructed by Hewitson Becke & Shaw, of Northampton) appeared for the claimant; Michael Bedford (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Sally Dobson, barrister
