Development — Local plan policy — Material considerations — Whether inspector misunderstanding effect of national planning policy — Whether inspector’s decision perverse — Application dismissed
The claimants, as the local planning authority, refused an application by the second defendant for planning permission to develop land in an industrial area. The development involved a change of use from a car dealership to a mixed office and residential scheme. The claimants took the view that, contrary to local plan policy, the development would deprive the area of an identified business site that would not be replaced. The first defendant allowed an appeal by the second defendant against that decision. An inspector concluded that material considerations justified a departure from the local plan policy, within the meaning of section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In particular, she took into account PPG 3, which encouraged the re-use of poorly-sited employment land for mixed-use development of the type proposed by the second defendant.
The claimants applied, under section 288 of the 1990 Act, to quash the inspector’s decision, arguing that she had misused planning policy guidance that was still in draft and that had no application to sites in current employment use, or that she had misunderstood the policy position in PPG 3 and the emerging draft, which did not apply to the facts of the present case. Moreover, no evidence existed to support the inspector’s conclusion that the land was not needed for employment use.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
Reading the inspector’s decision as a whole, it could not be said that she had misunderstood the effect of national planning policy, nor that her conclusions were perverse. This was a matter for the inspector to exercise her expertise, her knowledge of planning policy, and her judgment of how the planning policy should be applied, bearing in mind that she had been addressing parties who were familiar with planning matters and the issues involved: Seddon Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) 42 P&CR 26 applied.
Although PPG 3 did not expressly contain the words “poorly-sited employment land”, the planning preference was that industrial sites should be considered for residential development where their use as industrial sites was either no longer needed or was unlikely to be needed in the foreseeable future: South Somerset District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] PLR 83 considered.
A breach of local planning policy had to be balanced against the national need for more housing in small units. Ample evidence existed for the inspector to conclude that converting a large percentage of land to residential use would not significantly reduce the stock of employment land that the claimants were seeking to preserve. In the circumstances, the inspector had taken account of material considerations sufficient to meet the requirements of section 54A.
Rupert Warren (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, as agent for the solicitor to Chiltern District Council) appeared for the claimants; James Maurici (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Clive Newberry QC (instructed by England Palmer, of Guildford) appeared for the second defendant, Troy Homes Ltd.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
