Comprehensive development — Redetermination — Appeal refused — Residential development and bypass — Relevant development plans — Secretary of State’s finding on balance that development seriously undermining purpose of operative development plans — Need for measure of public certainty — Secretary of State’s decision quashed by High Court — Court of Appeal allowing appeal — Secretary of State’s decision reinstated
The district council refused to grant outline planning permission for the comprehensive development, including a bypass, of land to the west of the village of Downtown, Wiltshire. It had first been considered at a local inquiry when the inspector’s decision upholding that refusal was itself upheld by the Secretary of State. An appeal by the applicants to the High Court was allowed.
A second inspector on inquiry also refused planning permission. The Secretary of State upheld that refusal stating, inter alia, that the coming into force of section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 required him to determine the appeal in accordance with the relevant development plans unless there were material considerations which indicated otherwise.
He found that the proposal did not prejudice structure and local policies under the plans, and helped achieve their aims with regard to the bypass. However, the appeal proposal was clearly in conflict with other policies on housing in the development plans. The High Court quashed that decision: see [1994] EGCS 65. It held that: in the context of clear findings the development as a whole would not cause physical harm; and there ought not to be any independent consideration of the housing proposal. The Secretary of State and the council appealed.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. The Secretary of State refused permission because the scale of the departure from the housing policies in the development plan was such that the advantages of the development were outweighed by the plan.
2. While the present provisions of the structure and local plans remained in force, and provided that no other changes of national or local policy occurred which would weaken them — other things being equal — planning permission for a development such as that proposed would continue to be refused. But, at some time in the future, substantial housing development on the site might be seen as appropriate and then incorporated into a policy in the structure and/or local plan.
3. The Secretary of State was required to balance the housing provisions of both the structure and local plans against the desirability of a bypass and the fact that it accorded with the structure plan policy, together with the other considerations in favour of development to which he referred. He was then required to decide how much weight he should accord to those respective factors. That was what he did and decided that the housing policies outweighed all the other factors.
4. The Secretary of State arrived at his decision by a proper process of reasoning, which he explained with adequate clarity in his letter. In the end the decision depended upon the weight he gave to the housing policies, an exercise of judgment with which the court had no power to interfere.
Richard Drabble QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Philip Petchey (instructed by the solicitor to Salisbury District Council) appeared for the local planning authority; Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC (instructed by Boodle Hatfield, of Southampton) appeared for the applicants.
