Development – Housing – Settlement policy boundary (SPB) – Local planning authority refusing planning permission – Claimant appealing to defendant secretary of state – Inspector deciding proposed development permissible as “ribbon” or “backland” development despite SPB – Defendant refusing permission as development having intrusive effect on surrounding area – Whether inspector erring in law – Application dismissed
The claimant company had a conditional contract to purchase a site for residential development. The site was located within the settlement policy boundary (SPB) as shown on the proposal map of their district local plan. In the course of the statutory process for producing the local plan, objections had been received, inter alia, concerning the extent of the SPB on the basis that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area. The local plan inspector considered the objections but adopted the local plan with the SPB in the vicinity of the site as originally proposed.
The claimant applied for planning permission to demolish two large dwellings with substantial gardens and to erect 11 and 14 dwellings respectively and to use the rear garden of a third property for purposes relating to the proposed development. The second defendant local planning authority refused permission and the claimant appealed to the first defendant under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (1990) Act.
Following a public local inquiry, an inspector appointed by the first defendant recommended that the appeal be dismissed. He recognised that, as a matter of principle, the SPB did not require the proposed development to be limited to the frontage of the extant buildings (ribbon development) but could extend to the garden areas (backland development). Nevertheless, the inspector took the view that the proposed development would have an intrusive affect on the character and appearance of the surrounding areas, contrary to planning policy GS2. Accordingly, the first defendant dismissed the appeal.
The claimant applied, under section 78 of the 1990 Act, to quash that decision, contending that the inspector had erred in law in concluding that development was objectionable as a matter of principle, which was contrary to provisions of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (2004 Act).
Held: The application was dismissed.
The inspector had not erred in law and, in all the circumstances, was entitled to conclude that the proposed development would seriously damage the character and appearance of the area and would be likely to set a precedent for other similarly harmful developments.
Where an adopted or approved plan contained relevant planning policies, section 38(6) of the 2004 Act required that an application for planning permission, or an appeal, should be determined in accordance with the plan, unless material considerations indicated otherwise.
The inspector had properly considered all the relevant planning policies and had correctly identified the main issue as being the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. He was entitled to conclude that the proposals would represent a major change to the form of development on the appeal site, which was wholly out of keeping with the nature of existing development on the site.
Christopher Boyle (instructed by Davies Arnold Cooper) appeared for the claimant; David Forsdick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendant did not appear and was not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
