The high court in London today dismissed an appeal brought by a developer which wanted to build a 175-dwelling development in the Chilterns town of Wendover.
The developer, CEG Land Promotions II Ltd, was challenging a recommendation from a planning inspector to refuse permission for the development even though the planning authority, Aylesbury Vale District Council, did not have a five-year supply of housing land.
While this would usually “tip the balance” in favour of granting planning permission, the inspector refused it, saying that, if allowed, “there would be moderate to substantial harm to the landscape character… and material, adverse visual effects and the irrevocable loss of part of a valued landscape.”
Lawyers for the development claimed that this recommendation was “irrational” because it double-counted the effects on the landscape, counting harm to the landscape character and loss of a valued landscape as two points in the balance against granting permission, when they were in fact just one.
But in a ruling today, Mr Justice Ouseley dismissed the argument.
“The issue here was… whether the inspector had indeed double-counted the same harm,” he said in his ruling.
“While I can see why [the claimant’s lawyer] submits she did so, I do not accept his submission. There is a danger of over-analysing decision letters with the risk that in doing so, error is found where non exists.”
“I consider what she said to be simply a reflection of the fact she had to consider Local Plan polices, and also ‘valued landscapes’.”
He said that an earlier one of his rulings, called Stroud, “has been followed in other cases” concerning ‘valued landscapes’, and is “not an authority which supports” the claimants in this case.
“The inspector’s decision is correct,” he said.
GEC Land Promotions II Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and local Government
