In Forest of Dean District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 4052 (Admin) the claimant challenged the decision of an inspector on appeal to grant planning permission for the siting of 13 gypsy caravans on land in the countryside close to three listed buildings, all in residential use. Its ground was that the inspector misdirected himself on the statutory duty imposed by section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1991.
This obliges the decision maker, when considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
Earlier decisions in respect of the similar statutory duty in relation to conservation areas are authority for the proposition that “to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building etc” equated to giving “a high priority” to the objective of doing so, and to viewing that objective “as having considerable importance and weight”.
Moreover, in East Northamptonshire District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (see PP 2013/53) – a case in which an inspector was held to have failed to comply with the section 66(1) duty – the court had made it clear that, while that duty was a material consideration, greater importance attached to it than other material considerations that had not been given its special statutory status. It was not merely one material consideration to be weighed in the balance.
The court in the present case dismissed the application, holding that the inspector had not failed to discharge the section 66(1) duty. The facts were clearly distinguishable from those in East Northamptonshire. The inspector had referred twice to the duty, and he had described it correctly on each occasion. He had also recognised that the statutory duty was reflected both in the development plan, and in the NPPF. Finally, he had described the statutory test in his decision letter as “a high hurdle”. In those circumstances, in terms of the earlier authorities, he had given the requirements “a high priority” and had attached “considerable importance and weight” to them.
John Martin
