Rural site for proposed residential development subject to high levels of noise — Builders intending to install noise-muffling measures similar to those used on urban sites — Inspector finding site suitable for development according to planning guidelines but refusing planning permission — Whether refusal unreasonable — Application dismissed
The claimant building company applied for planning permission to develop land in a village location. The land was bounded by existing housing, a meat-processing plant, and a small industrial estate. Access to the site was limited, and it was therefore proposed that the access road should contain a “pinchpoint”, that is, a sharp, narrow turn. In order to provide greater clearance for motor vehicles, it was intended that the width of the pavement should be severely reduced at that point.
In order to address the problem of excessive noise emanating from the meat factory and the industrial estate, the planning application further proposed that the houses on the site should be fitted with a special ventilation system, similar to that used in housing developments abutting railway lines, so that the windows could remain closed during the night.
The local planning authority refused the grant of planning permission, and, after hearing expert evidence regarding noise-pollution levels and following a site visit, the inspector upheld their refusal.
The claimant applied to have that decision quashed on the ground, inter alia, that since the inspector had agreed with the local planning authority that, in principle, the land was suitable for development, he must have had some alternative scheme in mind when refusing its application.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The inspector had taken careful note of the expert evidence at the inquiry and had made a site visit, and he had therefore drawn his own conclusions as to the suitability of the site. He had found that, with regard to planning guidelines, there was nothing to bar the development of the land. This did not mean, however, that he accepted that the land was, in reality, suitable for residential development, and it did not imply that he had an alternative scheme in mind.
The suggested plan for the access road rendered it dangerous. Proposals to muffle noise by such measures as providing acoustic barriers, double glazing, and internal venting, which might be acceptable in an urban setting, were inappropriate in a rural area. Unlike railway noise, which gradually built up to a crescendo, the noise from, in particular, the industrial estate tended to be sudden and startling, especially in the early hours of the morning. Although the probable level of noise inside a house with closed windows would fall within levels suggested by the World Health Organisation, it would take very little to exceed that standard.
The inspector was entitled to use his own judgment to consider the particular circumstances of the site and the characteristics of the noise, as well as the statistical evidence adduced, and he had set out his reasons fully in his decision letter.
Jonathan Powell (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared for the applicant; James Strachan (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
