Residential development — PPG 3 — Appellant wishing to redevelop site between town and picturesque village — Whether site performing “so poorly” on assessment that its development potential fell below that of green-field sites — Appeal dismissed
The appellant owned land that was situated between a picturesque village and a larger town. In 2000, the appellant was granted planning permission to redevelop the land for Class B1 office use. It subsequently applied for outline planning permission to use the land for residential development.
The application was refused by the local planning authority on the basis that it was contrary to housing policy, a decision that was upheld by a planning inspector. The appellant appealed on the ground that the inspector had failed to undertake the appropriate urban capacity assessment indicated by PPG 3 and its associated document Tapping the Potential Assessing Housing Capacity: Towards Better Practice. The appellant maintained that the inspector had not considered whether the site performed “so poorly” on assessment that its potential for development fell below that of green-field sites.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
On the facts of the case, the inspector had clearly had PPG 3 and its associated documentation in mind when assessing the adverse effect of the proposed development, which, contrary to local planning policies, would erode the integrity of the village as an entity in its own right. The distance of the site from local amenities, the limited local bus service, and the site’s location at the side of a busy and dangerous main road would all encourage the use of motor vehicles through the village, contrary to policy objectives that prioritised pedestrian access. On that basis, the site performed extremely poorly against the assessment criteria. The inspector’s judgment was carefully set out and could not be challenged on the grounds of unreasonableness or irrationality, and the appeal therefore failed.
Ian Dove (instructed by Masons, of Bristol) appeared for the appellant; Jonathan Karas (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
