Planning permission for petrol filling station — Demonstrable need — Harm to rural landscape — Inspector refusing permission — Whether inspector failing to take into account material consideration — Applicants contending that no other suitable site available — Inspector’s decision quashed
The applicants had proposed construction of a petrol filling station with associated car wash and shop kiosk at Fenn Roundabout, South Woodham Ferrers, Essex. The appeal site was at the roundabout junction of the A132 and B1012, which were newly built roads around the town, and Ferrers which were newly built roads around the town, and Ferrers Way, a distributor road into the town centre. South Woodham Ferrers was a planned new settlement with a population of about 17,000. There were two existing petrol filling stations, both of which were not well situated to serve the town’s inhabitants as well as passing motorists using the main out of town roads. The applicants had argued the case before the inspector on the question of need, as well as the fact that the appeal site was the only suitable and available site on which that need could be met. They had adduced expert evidence that the problem of finding a site arose from the fact that the town had been planned with specific uses attached to virtually all the land and that there were no older rundown areas which might lend themselves to redevelopment for such purposes. The inspector found that there was a demonstrable lack of facilities justifying an exception to established policies for protecting the countryside in accordance with the development plan for the area which sought to protect the countryside. However, he refused planning permission on the ground that it would materially harm the character and appearance of the area. The Secretary of State conceded that the question of a lack of a suitable alternative site was a material consideration but submitted that it was wrong to infer from the inspector’s failure to mention the point that he did not have regard to it: see Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] JPL 1043.
Held The inspector’s decision was quashed.
1. In Bolton, it was held that there was nothing in the statutory language which required an inspector, in giving his reasons, to deal specifically with every material consideration. Otherwise his task would never be done.
2. However, while the intention had been to cut down delays in relation to very major planning proposals, their lordships’ speeches were not be taken as a green light to inspectors, on much smaller applications, to omit reference to issues where it was clear that the matter in question was fundamental to the decision or where there was a real possibility that the consideration of it would have made a difference to the decision.
3. Further, it was much more likely that in the context of a small inquiry a material consideration would qualify for the fuller treatment, demanded of a principal issue, than it would in the context of a major inquiry.
4. The courts performed an important quality control function for administrative decision making by requiring the reasoning process to be spelt out and justified. In Bolton the House of Lords sounded a warning note that that process should not be taken too far.
5. In the present case, however, the inspector had made no express mention of a matter which was common ground, viz that if a need for a filling station was established, there was no other site for it. The inspector should have had regard to that issue as a material consideration and have given his reasons for dismissing it.
Nicholas Nardecchia (instructed by Roger Green & Co, of Billericay) appeared for the applicants; Christopher Katkowski (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State; the second respondents, Chelmsford Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
