Inspector allowing appeal against refusal of planning permission for development of marina – Applicants seeking to quash inspector’s decision – Whether inspector failing to consider the evidential dispute as to commercial viability of smaller marinas – Application dismissed
The respondent developer applied for planning permission for a canal boat-mooring basin (a marina). The size of the proposed marina was 5.5ha, with 197 berths. The basis of the developer’s case was that a smaller marina was not commercially viable. The respondent’s application was rejected. At an inquiry, the inspector allowed the repondent’s appeal and granted conditional planning permission. The inspector was satisfied that the respondent had “carried out a… diligent search for a suitable site within the search area identified”, and that there was “no other means of realising the full potential of the canal network… therefore the proposal would not be in conflict with Policy R6”.
The applicant, who was the proprietor of a neighbouring marina, sought to challenge the inspector’s decision, pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It submitted that the inspector: (1) had failed to take into account that the minimum requirements for a commercially viable marina were lower than those put forward by the developers; and (2) had failed to give adequate reasons in relation to that issue.
Held: The application was dismissed.
1. In considering the first issue, the inspector focused on the question of whether there would be other means of realising the full potential of the canal network. That was a central question and, in order to answer it, the inspector examined the developer’s assessment of other potential sites, which analysed the sites by reference to a number of criteria, including size. The inspector’s examination of that assessment necessarily included consideration of the appropriateness of the criteria themselves. In her judgment, the inspector accepted the viability of the requirement of a 5.5ha site. That was a matter for her planning judgment. Failure to make express reference to the applicant’s case did not mean that the inspector had failed to take it into account.
2. It was not necessary for the inspector to deal in terms with the evidential dispute as to the commercial viability of smaller marinas. It was a material consideration but, in the context of the whole case, it was not one of the principal controversial issues, which called for separate treatment. In any event, the inspector’s reasons were sufficient to enable the applicant to know what conclusion had been reached on that particular issue: Bolton Metropolitan Borough District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1995) 71 P&CR 309 applied.
Robert McCracken (instructed by Ollerenshaw, of Leamington Spa) appeared for the applicant, Davies; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Adrian Trevelyan Thomas (instructed by Birkett Westhorpe & Long, of Colchester) appeared for the second respondent, Black Prince Holdings Ltd.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
