Development — Stopping-up of highway — Planning inspector recommending stopping up to facilitate development — Defendant secretary of state making order — Claimant applying to quash decision — Application dismissed
The claimant registered charity worked with Bristol city council to achieve a balanced working and social environment. In 2003, the council granted planning permission for a proposed new visitor centre for the Clifton suspension bridge.
The proposed footprint of the centre extended onto an area of footpath lying within the highway. Accordingly, the defendant secretary of state, adopting a recommendation by the planning inspector following a public inquiry, made an order pursuant to section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to stop up two areas of highway to enable the development to be carried out.
The claimant applied, under section 287 of the 1990 Act, to quash the decision on the grounds that; (i) the development would create numerous dangers for pedestrians and cyclists; and (ii) the proposed pedestrian crossing fell substantially short of the Department of Transport (DoT) guidelines for visibility splays and required vehicle stopping distances.
The defendant held that, on balance, any disadvantages or loss likely to arise as a result of the stopping-up were not sufficiently serious so as to outweigh the advantages to be conferred by the proposed order.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The defendant had to decide whether, having regard to the nature of the proposed development, the disadvantages and losses were sufficiently serious for him to refuse to make the closure order that was being sought. The defendant was entitled to rely on the inspector’s report, which contained advice that was neither irrational nor unlawful: Vasiliou v Secretary of State for Transport [1991] 1 PLR 39.
The inspector was entitled to accept the views of the traffic experts that, in this particular location, the fact that the visibility fell short of DoT standards, did not so compromise public safety as to outweigh the advantages that would flow from implementation of the planning permission. In all the circumstances, the court did not accept that the inspector had confronted a situation in which there was an unanswered safety issue that made it irrational of him to advise approval of the order.
Katherine Olley (instructed by Lovells) appeared for the claimant; Paul Brown (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant. The interested parties did not appear and were not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
