Application for planning permission to develop existing sports ground – Application proposing improvement to sporting facilities – Application refused – Whether inspector failing to give adequate reasons – Appeal allowed
The appellants applied for planning permission in relation to Helen Road Sports Ground at Helen Road, Gidea Park, Romford, Essex. The 3.35ha site, which had been laid out as a sports ground for railway workers in the 1920s, contained a playing field with two football pitches, a pavilion, two derelict tennis courts, an overgrown bowling green and the shooting range of a rifle club. The only use being made of the site was by the rifle club and by a junior school that used one of the football pitches.
The planning application proposed an indoor racket and health club with, inter alia, six tennis courts, four badminton courts, three squash courts, a 25m swimming pool and a fitness gym. In addition, it proposed outdoor facilities comprising six tennis courts, three volleyball courts, a 25m swimming pool and parking. At the planning inquiry, the appellants proffered a unilateral planning obligation under which would be provided: (i) 500 hours of complimentary indoor court access per year for the purposes of a community programme; (ii) complimentary access for the junior school to two indoor courts for one hour for each court on weekdays; (iii) £3,000 to the junior school for the cost of providing alternative sports facilities; (iv) the landscaping of an area on the site for community use; and (v) £3,000 to the council for a new playing field at a nearby park.
The inspector rejected the application, concluding that the development would result in the loss of open space to the detriment of the existing character of the area, would fail to provide adequately for the recreational needs of the community and would impinge upon the residential amenities of any neighbouring dwelling. Furthermore, he considered that the proposal would attract substantial vehicular traffic. The applicants appealed under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The judge dismissed the application. The applicants appealed, contending that the inspector had not given adequate reasons for his decision.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The inspector’s conclusion on whether the provision of leisure and recreation facilities in the area would be at least as well provided for as under the proposal was not, on its face, clear to a reasonably intelligent reader. It appeared that he had given enormous weight to the fact that the football pitches would have to be relocated, without giving any weight at all to the enormous improvement that would be made to the sporting facilities under the appellants’ proposal. The appellants could legitimately wonder whether the inspector had failed to understand something, and whether, had he properly explained his conclusion on the issue, he would have exposed an error in the reasoning. Accordingly, the matter was to be remitted for further consideration.
David Village (instructed by Howard Kennedy) appeared for the appellants; Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
