Claimant applying for planning permission for housing development – Council failing to determine application in time – Inquiry held – Inspector dismissing appeal and refusing permission – Claimant appealing – Whether inspector’s decision inadequately reasoned – Claim allowed
The claimant applied to the second defendant city council for planning permission to build five detached houses on land at the outskirts of Sheffield. The council failed to determine the application within the requisite time and the claimant appealed under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. An inquiry was held.
It was common ground between the council and the claimant that the site was in a housing area identified in the unitary development plan, and so some development could, in principle, be permitted provided it complied with policies H14 and GE4. The objection was to the scale of the development. The council had put forward an alternative suggestion that development be limited to construction of two houses. However, there were other objectors at the inquiry who gave evidence and submitted that no development on the site should be permitted because the criteria in policies H14 and GE4 could not be met. The inspector concluded that the proposal would be contrary to the objectives of development plan policies, and dismissed the appeal. The claimant sought to quash the inspector’s decision pursuant to section 288 of the 1990 Act on the ground that it was inadequately reasoned. It contended that the inspector did not indicate whether he was concluding that development on the site was inappropriate in principle, or whether he was merely deciding that the proposed development was inappropriate.
Held: The claim was allowed.
Whether or not any development was permissible was an issue that was before the inspector and he should have made his views on that issue clear, or indicated that he had no views because it was not necessary to deal with it. While the council’s agreement that some development was permissible was an important consideration, in light of the objections made at the inquiry, it was not to be assumed that the inspector had to accept it. There was evidence from objectors before the inspector that no development on the site should be permitted because it could not comply with policies GE4 and H14. It was not for the inspector to say whether the council’s alternative suggestion was appropriate, or to compare the two proposals, but he should have at least indicated whether he ruled out any development. However, his decision letter was not clear. The claimant was substantially prejudiced in that it did not know what development might be appropriate.
Ian Dove (instructed by Hammond Suddards Edge, of Birmingham) appeared for the claimant; David Forsdick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
