A further issue in R (on the application of Holder) v Gedling Borough Council (see PP 2014/89) was the availability of alternative sites.
The basic principle in this respect is that land may be developed in any way that is acceptable for planning purposes. The fact that other land exists on which the development would be even more acceptable for planning purposes would not justify the refusal of planning permission on the application or appeal site.
However, where there are clear planning objections to the development proposals in question, it may be relevant and indeed necessary to consider whether there is a more appropriate alternative site elsewhere. This is particularly so (a) when the development proposals are likely to have significant adverse effects and (b) where the major argument advanced in support of the planning application is that the need for the development outweighs the planning disadvantages inherent in it.
The interested parties in Gedling had earlier been granted planning permission by the local planning authority for two smaller wind turbines on their farm with a maximum ground-to-tip height of 25m. Third-party objectors to the later planning application had argued that the development should be sited elsewhere outside the green belt, and that there were other alternative methods of producing renewable energy. Once more, the planning officer in his report to the planning committee had identified these representations as “non-material planning issues”.
Once more the Court of Appeal held that the planning officer’s approach in this respect was legally flawed. The appeal judges recognised that, while the concept of “alternative sites” raises two different considerations, namely alternative sites away from the green belt and alternatives on the same site, for the interested parties only the latter were relevant. However, alternatives on the same site were a potential issue given the existence of the earlier planning permission. It was common ground that the two smaller wind turbines could equally well generate sufficient power to meet the needs of the interested parties.
Accordingly, these representations were material considerations, and so factors for the planning committee to weigh in the balance. It was an error of law to proceed on the basis that it was immaterial that other alternative methods of producing reasonable energy existed.
John Martin
