Planning application for construction of store — Secretary of state calling in application — Permission refused — Proposal not in accordance with unitary development plan — Application to quash refusal — Whether defendant erring in law — Claim dismissed
The claimant applied for planning permission for the construction of a 28,000m2 store in Stockport. The defendant called in the application for his own determination. A public inquiry was held, at which the local planning authority gave evidence in support of the proposals but no evidence was given to oppose them. The inspector recommended that permission should be granted, but the defendant disagreed and refused permission. The claimant challenged that decision and the defendant consented to it being quashed on the basis that the decision letter contained errors.
The public inquiry was reopened with a second inspector. The claimant argued that its proposal constituted a subregional retail store that would attract customers within the Stockport region, and that it had considered alternative sites within that area. It contended that the proposal was in line with the emerging development plan and that the unitary development plan (UDP) was largely spent and should therefore be given little weight. The planning authority again gave evidence in support of the proposal, and, again, no evidence was submitted in opposition. The second inspector recommended that permission should be refused, and the defendant agreed. He concluded that the catchment area for the store would extend well beyond the Stockport area. Accordingly, the analysis of appropriate sites should also have considered sites that might more appropriately serve that wider catchment area. He considered that although the proposed development would offer certain benefits, but the objections against it outweighed them. He also took the view that the adopted UDP was the standard against which the development should be assessed, whereas the emerging plan should be given very little weight. On that basis, the proposal did not accord with the UDP. The claimant challenged the defendant’s decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
Although the defendant’s decision was unsatisfactory in some respects, the claimant’s challenges did not, either individually or cumulatively, demonstrate errors that would necessitate the quashing of the decision. The weight to be attached to any particular piece of evidence was a matter for the decision maker and not the court: Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 2 EGLR 147 applied.
The reasons for the decision had to be read in a straightforward way, without excessive legalism or exegetical sophistication. The defendant’s essential reasoning was clear. He took the view that the catchment area extended beyond the Stockport subregion, which rendered the claimant’s sequential analysis inadequate because it focused on the narrower area. He was fully entitled to reach that conclusion: Clarke Homes v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 66 P&CR 263 applied.
In addition, he doubted whether certain of the suggested benefits would in fact be achieved. Specifically, he questioned whether there would be any significant increase in linked trips or a reduction in mileage. Those factors persuaded him that, in the circumstances, he should not grant permission for a development that he deemed to be inconsistent with the development plan. He had formed his own judgment as to the materiality of the LDP and how much weight should be given to the emerging plan, and he was entitled to have a different view from that of the claimant. The interpretation of policy was a matter for the decision maker, as long as the words of the policy allowed that meaning: R v Derbyshire County Council, ex parte Woods [1997] JPL 958 applied.
Christopher Katkowski QC (instructed by Shoosmiths) appeared for the claimant; Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
