Planning application for large commercial development in Kent – Holiday village in area of outstanding natural beauty – Public inquiry – Inspector’s report adopted by Secretary of Statefor the Environment – Inspector finding some harm to Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – Whether Secretary of State failing to give adequate reasons – Whether finding that proposal in proven national interest flawed – Appeal dismissed
The third respondent, Rank Holidays, submitted an application for a major commercial development, a holiday village, in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (‘ANOB’). The cost of the development was estimated to be in the region of £100m and the village was to have the capacity to accommodate 3,500 guests at any one time. The proposal received support from the local authority but opposition from the public and the Save Lyminge Forest action group, represented by the applicants. A public inquiry was held and the inspector’s report, a substantial document, was accepted by the Secretary of State. The inspector concluded that there was no reasonable basis for refusing permission for the proposal on the grounds of AONB policy since the project was in the proven national interest and the weight of evidence was that a lack of alternative sites had been demonstrated, Rank having gone as far as could reasonably be expected in considering alternative sites. Finally, the inspector decided that no demonstrable harm would arise in terms of countryside and conservation issues. The Secretary of State disagreed with the latter conclusion but decided that any harm would be outweighed by the advantages of the proposal. An application to quash the decision was refused and the applicants appealed.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. Although a major commercial development within an AONB required proven national interest and lack of alternative sites to justify its exception to the general policy, it was a matter for the Secretary of State whether any particular case justified such an exception, subject only to Wednesbury principles. Rank had gone as far as could reasonably be expected to demonstrate that there was a lack of suitable alternative sites and the Secretary of State had been entitled to accept the inspector’s conclusion that the choice of site had been soundly based. There was no universally applicable rule as to the area or range or detail of the inquiry required, but it was for the Secretary of State to decide whether a sufficient survey had been conducted.
2. Although the Secretary of State had disagreed with the inspector’s conclusion that there would be no harm, he was not obliged to particularise the harm. He was entitled to agree with the inspector’s general conclusions while differing from his opinion in that regard. It could not be concluded that he was required to give more detailed reasons as to harm to the extent that it would justify quashing the decision. There was no lacuna in the stated reasons which could raise a substantial doubt that there had been a flaw in the proceedings see: Save Britain’s Heritage v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] 3 PLR 17 per Lord Bridge at p30.
David Holgate (instructed by Donne Mileham & Haddock, of Brighton) appeared for the applicants; Alun Alesbury (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; John Hobson (instructed by the solicitor to Shepway District Council) appeared for the second respondents; Michael Fitzgerald QC and Richard Glover (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) appeared for the third respondent, Rank Holidays & Hotels Developments Ltd.
