Application for planning permission for retail premises – Inspector dismissing appeal – Whether inspector failed to address PPG 1 in relation to prematurity – Whether inspector erred in concluding A3 use inappropriate – Inspector’s decision quashed
The applicant sought planning permission for development described as “Retail building (A1 Use Class), two restaurants and car parking spaces” on a site of 1.57 ha at Trinity Nurseries, The Broadway, Bridgwater. The site was adjacent to a Safeway superstore which was granted planning permission in 1993. It lay on the southern fringe of the town centre from which it was separated by a dual carriageway. The council dismissed the application on the ground that the proposal was not in accordance with the development plan by reason of its location and the adverse effect that it might have on Bridgwater town centre. The applicant appealed.
The inspector held an inquiry and dismissed the appeal. He concluded, inter alia, that to permit the development would be to pre-empt decisions on shopping policy that ought properly to be dealt with in the context of a review of the local plan, and that the A3 restaurant element of the proposals was inappropriate.
The applicant applied under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the inspector’s decision. The development plan comprised the Somerset Structure Plan Alteration No 2 of June 1993 and the Bridgwater Area Local Plan. The applicant contended that in the light of PPG 1 the application should have been determined in the light of current policies, and therefore it could not have been refused on the ground of prematurity since the consultation stage of the development plan had not been reached and, in any event, it was not appropriate in the relevant circumstances. It was further contended that the inspector’s conclusion that the A3 restaurant element of the proposals was inappropriate was in breach of natural justice since it had never been suggested at the inquiry, or before it, that the A3 use might be inappropriate.
Held The application was allowed.
1. The inspector could not be assumed to have had in mind the policy on prematurity contained in PPG 1. The issue of whether he had regard to the policy was to be answered in the light of all the circumstances. He was apparently acting contrary to the advice in PPG 1 in dismissing the appeal on the ground of prematurity. Although the issue had scarcely been touched on at the inquiry and the inspector had attached importance to the issue, which, coupled with his failure to say whether he considered the proposals to be in accordance with the development plan, meant that the reasons which he had given were inadequate. The applicant had been prejudiced as a result.
2. It had not been suggested either at the inquiry or before that A3 use might be inappropriate. Therefore it had been necessary for the inspector to indicate clearly whether it was a matter that had significantly affected his overall judgment, so that it could be established whether his decision was susceptible to the challenge on that ground. His failure to do so made the reasons given in his decision inadequate and that also had caused prejudice to the applicant.
Robin Purchas QC and Joanna Clayton (instructed by Battens, of Yeovil) appeared for the applicant; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondents.
