Applications for planning permission dismissed by council – Inspector dismissing appeals – Whether inspector failing to consider material consideration in order to assess established use of site – Application for inspector’s decision to be quashed allowed
The applicant appealed against the failure of the second respondents, Surrey County Council, to determine four applications for the continued use of land at Chalk Pit, College Road, Epsom. The applications were for: first, the variation of existing planning permission to enable the continued use of the land for the transfer of waste and a skip hire business for a limited period expiring on November 19 2002; second, for the retention of a concrete hardstanding to facilitate the transfer of builders’ waste for the limited period; third, for the variation of the existing planning permission to enable the retention of various offices for the limited period; and fourth, for the renewal of planning permission for the erection of a steel frame canopy for the limited period. The applicant also appealed against the council’s refusal of applications for planning permission for: first, the use of the land for the stationing of sieving machinery; and second, for resiting of part of the existing offices.
The Chalk Pit, which was located in the green belt, was an old mineral working situated on the northern side of the A2022, about one mile south east of Epsom town centre. In total it extended to 1.8 ha and the appeal site occupied about 0.1 ha. It was host to a number of other businesses including another waste transfer operation, a substantial building housing a specialist vehicle repairer, various plant storage or repair uses, a large workshop building and an area used for the storage and parking of coaches and cars. The inspector dismissed the six appeals. The applicant appealed contending, inter alia, that the inspector had failed to take into account a material consideration when assessing the established use of the site and had misdirected himself in concluding “the only clear statement I have of established uses in the Chalk Pit is the determination made in 1963”. It was contended that the inspector had failed to have regard to the statement of a county planning officer in 1992 that “Waste transfer from this location does not enjoy established use rights but an open storage use is established generating traffic over which there is no control”.
Held The application was allowed.
The inspector was under a duty to set out his reasons which had led to his overall conclusions, although he only had to make reference to the main issues: see Secretary of State for the Environment v MJT Securities Ltd [1997] 75 P&CR 188. The issue as to whether there was established storage use was a material factor. However, the inspector had not referred to the 1992 report, which was not simply a failure to mention some evidence but was a failure to mention evidence of the use status of the appeal site, a main issue at the centre of one of the reasons for rejecting the applications. The inspector should have clearly set out his reasons if he was going to reject that evidence, and it could be concluded that he had either failed to have any regard to it or had failed to state any reasons. Accordingly his decisions were to be quashed.
James Findlay (instructed by Gummersalls, of Epsom) appeared for the appellant; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondents, Surrey County Council, did not appear and were not represented.
