Planning permission — Green belt — Research facility — Presumption against development — Whether defendant entitled to have regard to government policy — Whether defendant taking into account all material considerations — Application dismissed
A university applied for planning permission for the erection of a building for Class B1(b) research use. The site was situated in the green belt and, since an animal research facility had existed there on the site for more than 50 years, the proposal did not involve a change of use. However, because the application involved the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a new one, it required planning permission within the meaning of section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The council refused permission. The university appealed to the first secretary of state, who appointed an inspector to hold an inquiry.
There was a presumption that permission should be refused for such development unless it could be established that very special circumstances outweighed harm to the green belt. The university argued that the proposed centre was of national importance and it produced two letters from the relevant government minister to show that: (i) it was the government’s view that the centre was of national importance; (ii) it would cement the UK’s position as a world leader in neurosciences; and (iii) such centres were the key to realising the government’s aim of making the UK a centre of excellence for world sciences. Following the inquiry, the inspector considered that very special circumstances had not been established and he recommended that the appeal should be dismissed.
The defendant rejected the inspector’s recommendation. He was of the view that the development was in line with government policy, and he concluded that very special circumstances did exist to outweigh any harm to the green belt. The claimants applied to quash that decision under section 288 of the 1990 Act.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The defendant had correctly directed himself in law and had taken into account all material considerations. The weighing of the importance of the development and the consideration as to whether it amounted to very special circumstances were matters of evaluative judgment for the defendant, and his decision was neither perverse nor irrational.
He was entitled to have regard to national policy on issues such as the need for research facilities and the benefits that would flow from them. He was also entitled to weigh those policies and benefits against other considerations and the inspector was not permitted to go behind the government policy: Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 75 applied.
In the present case, the defendant had before him evidence of national policy. The university was an appropriate place for the development since, as a matter of government policy, it was desirable to have research facilities close to existing universities in order to draw on existing expertise. The defendant was notbeing perverse when deciding, in the light of that policy, that he considered that very special circumstances would outweigh any harm to the green belt and other additional harm. It was necessary to have regard to the planning merits of the development, but such objections did not outweigh the need for the development.
Neil King QC and Richard Wald (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) appeared for the claimants; Philip Sales and Clive Lewis (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
