A challenge to the grant of planning permission based upon the argument that there were preferable alternative sites upon which the proposed development could have been carried out also featured in Westerleigh Group Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 4313 (Admin), though it took a somewhat different form. In that case, the local planning authority (“LPA”) had refused to grant planning permission for the construction of a crematorium, together with associated features, contrary to the recommendation of its planning officer. Following an appeal to the secretary of state, his inspector granted conditional planning permission for the development sought. The appeal was conducted by means of the written representation procedure, despite local pressure for an inquiry to be held.
The inspector’s decision letter made reference to the existence of two specific alternative sites. At the time of that decision letter, the first was under appeal to the secretary of state, the LPA having refused to grant planning permission. Shortly afterwards, an application for planning permission was submitted in respect of the second. The inspector dealt only briefly with them.
The claimant applied to quash the inspector’s decision. One of his grounds of challenge related to the existence of those sites. He contended that the inspector deprived himself of the opportunity to investigate the planning objections to the appeal proposal and/or the merits of those alternative sites by his decision to conduct the appeal by means of the written representations procedure, and that this in turn led to unfairness to the objectors.
The court rejected that argument, referring in particular to a statement made by Laws LJ in R (on the application of Scott and another) v North Warwickshire Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 315; [2001] 2 PLR 59. Having indicated that considerations of alternative sites would only be relevant to a planning application in exceptional circumstances, Laws LJ went on to say that such circumstances would particularly arise “where the proposed development, though desirable in itself, involves on the site proposed such conspicuous adverse effects that the possibility of an alternative site lacking such drawbacks necessarily itself becomes, in the mind of a reasonable local planning authority, a relevant planning consideration upon the application in question”.
Here, the judge concluded, the appeal proposal gave rise to no conspicuous adverse effects and, in the absence of such a finding, there was no obligation upon the inspector to consider alternative sites.
John Martin is a planning law consultant
