Development — Unitary development plan — Application for erection of non-food retail warehouse — Application refused — Planning inspector recommending dismissal of claimant’s appeal against refusal — Whether inspector failing to take account of material evidence — Whether reasons for decision adequate — Section 288 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 — Claim allowed
The claimant applied for permission to erect an A1 non-food retail warehouse and associated garden centre, a bulky goods stock area, A3 restaurant premises, ancillary car parking for 510 cars, and landscaping, on land in south-east London. The site, and its surroundings, were predominantly within a defined industrial area. The second defendant planning authority refused permission for the development, and the claimant appealed to the Secretary of State. An inspector held a local inquiry and recommended that the appeal be refused. He identified eight main considerations upon which the decision should be based, namely: (i) the unitary development plan (UDP) and other industrial/employment policies and strategy; (ii) industrial land supply and demand; (iii) employment generation; (iv) UDP retail policies and strategy; (v) retail need; (vi) retail format and flexibility; (vii) sequential approach and alternative sites; and (viii) transport accessibility. He considered that there were policy objections to the development, particularly in connection with industrial and employment strategies. Overall, he concluded that there were arguments both for and against the proposal, but that, on balance, the appeal should be dismissed.
The claimant appealed, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, arguing, inter alia, that, in considering whether there were any factors outweighing the conflict between the proposal and the UDP, the inspector had confined himself to retail issues without having regard to a number of other material considerations. Further, the inspector’s approach to the issue of single regeneration budget (SRB) was flawed, in that he had regarded the industrial/employment policy objection to the proposed development as an overriding reason for not allowing the appeal, but had failed to deal with the evidence that the appeal site was unlikely to attract funding, since it was capable of development without grant aid.
Held: The claim was allowed.
The inspector had failed to give adequate reasons on the industrial/employment policy issue. It was necessary that the appropriate explanation should be given so that it could be seen whether any substantive basis existed for the inspector’s conclusion that the appeal should be refused so as to preserve the site for industrial development. His finding that the proposal substantially conflicted with the UDP’s industrial/employment policies had formed the principal basis for his dismissal of the appeal, and the claimant had thus been substantially prejudiced by his perceived failure.
Richard Phillips QC and Douglas Edwards (instructed by Bond Pearce, Southampton) appeared for the claimant; Timothy Corner (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants, Greenwich London Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
