A High Court decision ordering the reconsideration of a leisure development proposal in the Essex green belt is being viewed by lawyers involved in the case as a significant ruling on the issue of enabling development.
Guthrie McGruer, head of planning law at Blake Lapthorn, the solicitor for the developer, Dr Michael Valente, said: “This is an important case on the question of assessing enabling development, when considering whether very special circumstances exist to outweigh the normal presumption against developing in the green belt.”
Valente received planning permission to develop a golf course, leisure facilities and an hotel, subject to an agreement, under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that he would carry out restoration works to two listed buildings, a barn and a hall, both of which were sited on the land. A further condition required him to obtain approval of reserved matters as to the siting, the design and the external appearance of the hotel by July 2000.
In May 2000, the council rejected Valente’s scheme to convert the barn into a restaurant as part of the hotel development. His appeal against that decision was dismissed.
Valente subsequently applied, under section 73 of the 1990 Act, to vary the condition by extending the time limit for approval of the reserved matters. However, the council failed to determine the application, and an appeal against that failure was also dismissed. The inspector found that Valente’s work had removed the need for enabling development, and that, in those circumstances, the special circumstances that had led to the original consent no longer existed.
In the High Court, Harrison J held that the inspector had failed to consider the contemplated restoration of the barn, and maintained that this was capable of amounting to very special circumstances, which would justify inappropriate development in the green belt.
He said that the inspector’s failure to take into account such a material planning consideration was an omission of sufficient importance that his decision should be quashed and the matter remitted to the Secretary of State.
Commenting on the decision, McGruer said: “Dr Valente feels particularly aggrieved at Thurrock Borough Council’s handling of his planning application, the subject of the appeal, because outline permission for the hotel had already been granted by the council in 1995.
“It was always contemplated that the works to a listed barn (which the council regard as having exceptional local importance) could be carried out only if the detailed consent were granted for the hotel, enabling sufficient funds to be released to restore the barn.
“He is very pleased that his appeal will now be reheard, and the new inspector will need specifically to consider the extensive works required to restore the barn.”
Valente v First Secretary of State and another Queen’s Bench Division (Harrison J) 14 May 2003.
Matthew Horton QC (instructed by Blake Lapthorn) appeared for the claimant; John Litton (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Douglas Edwards (instructed by the solicitor to Thurrock Council) appeared for the second defendants.
References: PLS News 16/5/03
