Industrial estate development proposal extending on to green belt – Applicant seeking to quash inspector’s decision dismissing appeal against refusal of planning permission – Application dismissed
The case concerned one of three appeals, heard at an inquiry in February 1998, relating to adjoining parcels of land to the south of Gordleton Industrial Estate, Lymington. The original estate had been permitted as an exception to green belt policy. The appeals proposed extension to the south of the estate, upon land that was within the green belt and within the New Forest Heritage. The applicant (LPE) manufactured and supplied defence equipment and occupied a site, at which there was no room for expansion. Its proposal was for a building of 4,180 sq m to the south of the industrial estate. At the inquiry, the issue was whether there had been very special circumstances to justify the granting of planning permission for such a development. In so doing, it was necessary to balance the need against the harm. It was submitted that the inspector had failed to take material considerations into account and had considered irrelevant matters. Issues raised included the need of the applicant, the consideration of alternative sites and the manner in which the inspector had dealt with needs of the local economy. The applicant appealed pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Held The application was dismissed.
The test to apply to two factual errors made by the inspector was whether those errors would have resulted in a different overall conclusion. In the present case, the same decision would have been made. PPG 4, which covered the whole gamut of employment considerations, was before the inquiry and was referred to by the inspector. The inspector had not ignored nor misunderstood the wider economic aspect of the issues before her. She had not concentrated on the employment aspects of the proposals in her consideration of those issues, nor in her final decision. Further, there had been nothing perverse or unreasonable in her reasoning.
William Hicks QC (instructed by Sherwin Oliver, of Fareham) appeared for the applicant; Christopher Katkowski (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents, New Forest District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister