Council refusing application for outline planning permission for housing development – Inspector dismissing applicant’s appeal – Whether inspector failing to give adequate reasons for rejecting application of policy 66(a) of structure plan – Whether inspector’s conclusion on cumulative effect perverse – Application for inspector’s decision to be quashed allowed
The applicant applied for outline planning permission for residential development, erection of new dwellings together with associated open space provision and resiting of existing open space on land at Martins Way, Hixon, Staffordshire. The council refused permission and the applicant appealed. The inspector held a public enquiry and inspected the site. At the inquiry the applicant contended that the relevant particular policy criteria were met and in particular policy 66(a) of the Staffordshire Structure Plan. The inspector dismissed the appeal identifying the main issues as whether the proposed development would, first, accord with the objectives of the development plan policies relating to development in rural areas and settlements and, second, be premature at the stage now reached in the preparation of the emerging local plan decision letter. The relevant structure plan was the Staffordshire Structure Plan 1986-2001. By policy 66, “Housing development in rural settlements will be allowed where (a) it is consistent with Policy 76A of the local planning policies for the area, or it represents limited infilling consistent with the scale and character of the settlement . . .”. It was submitted that the inspector, when considering whether the proposed development would comply with policy 66(a), had only considered whether it would represent limited infilling consistent with the scale and character of the settlement and had failed to consider the alternative meaning of complying with policy 66(a) namely that the proposal was consistent with the emerging local planning policies for the areas. It was further contended that the inspector’s conclusion that “the proposed development of about 50 dwelling . . . in terms of Hixon the cumulative effect would . . . be significant” was unreasonable.
Held The application was allowed.
1. The interpretation of policy plans was for the decision maker, subject to the limitations of his powers. The policy was to be applied in accordance with the circumstances and it was for the decision maker to determine what was to be taken into account. However, the inspector had failed to have regard to the implementation of the policy or to give reasons why he was rejecting the application of policy 66(a). Although he had made limited reference to the local plan policy, he had not been sufficiently specific. Accordingly, since it could not be concluded that if he had regard to policy 66(a) he would have reached the same conclusion and the application was to be allowed
2. The inspector had not concluded that the development would necessarily be unacceptable or that 50 homes would be excessive. He had merely stated that the effect of the development cumulatively would be significant. That was a matter which was properly to be determined at the local plan process. There was evidence from which that conclusion could be reached and he had given adequate reasons for it. Therefore his conclusion on that point had not been perverse and the reasons had not been inadequate.
Martin Kingston QC (instructed by Gateley Wareing, of Birmingham) appeared for the applicants; John Litton (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondents, the Secretary of State for the Environment and Straford Borough Council.
