Appeal against refusal of planning permission — Planning inquiry — Proposed residential development adjoining concrete works — Expert evidence on noise levels and dust — Inspector rejecting evidence — Appeal dismissed — Whether inspector entitled to disregard expert evidence — Whether inspector gave adequate reasons
The appellant company applied for planning permission for some residential development on a site to the north and east of an existing concrete works. Planning permission was refused and an appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment was dismissed following a public local inquiry. The appellants applied under section 245 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to have the Secretary of State’s decision, by his inspector, quashed on the grounds that the inspector’s report was in error and did not contain adequate reasons. The inspector noted the amount of slurry on a wet day and concluded that this would produce dust in dry conditions; he recommended that the appeal should be refused and that planning permission should not be granted, as the noise and dust from the concrete works, and the unsocial hours of working, would create friction which could prejudice the concrete company.
It was contended that at the inquiry expert evidence, which was not challenged, had been given that the noise levels at the site were within the limits set out in Circular 10/1973– Planning and Noise — and that when dust samples were taken with the wind in the west, the dust samples were relatively low when compared with the surrounding land. In support of the Secretary of State’s decision, it was argued that there is no rule that an inspector must accept uncontradicted expert evidence.
Held The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Secretary of State. An inspector is not entitled to reject uncontradicted evidence without giving reasons. In the case of the inspector’s conclusions as to the noise levels, he had given no reasons why, against the background of the maxima in Circular 10/1973, he thought he was justified in recommending the refusal of planning permission in respect of lower levels of noise. The inspector was not entitled to reject the expert evidence as to the amount of dust just because he thought there would be some dust; the real question was whether there was more dust than normal and the inspector had not dealt with the expert evidence that the site showed lower dust levels than those on a residential site to the east, he just rejected it. Technical points were in issue and the inspector had no material upon which he could make his recommendations.
Fairmount Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment
[1976] 1 WLR 1255, HL considered.
Robert Carnwath QC (instructed by Chapman & Goddard, of Leicester) appeared for the appellant company; and Timothy Briden (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent. The second respondent, Blaby District Council, did not appear and was not represented.
