Industrial site — Application for retail development on site — Inspector finding that the development would undermine viability of nearby town centre — Whether development in conflict with national guidance and local plans — Whether decision a matter of planning judgment for the inspector — Application to quash his decision refused.
The applicants applied for outline planning permission for the development of land at Beechings Way, Industrial Estate, Featherby Road, Gillingham, Kent. This was for the redevelopment of the existing industrial estate and to provide buildings for Use Class B1, B2 and B8 (5,400m2) and non-food retail warehousing (6,480m2), associating parking access and regress. On refusal of that application an inspector was appointed to determine the applicants’ appeal. He decided that the main issues in the case were: whether the proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of employment land, contrary to national and local policies; and whether it would have an unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of Gillingham town centre and the district centre at Rainham.
He found that the appeal site formed part of a well established industrial estate where there was a general presumption, under the local plan, to consolidate the existing uses and generate additional employment. Policy E11 aimed to facilitate small industrial units for which there had been a continuing demand. In particular, the proposal for 6,480m2 of non-food retail warehousing was contrary to the local plans and also contrary to 1992/PPG6 — Town Centres and Retail Developments — para 47, which stressed that retail development should not normally be allowed on industrial land. The applicants appealed.
Held The application was refused.
1. The inspector had found that it was important to note that the loss of part of the estate to retail warehousing would have a serious effect on the supply of industrial land and that although the scheme only related to a relatively small part of the estate, the retail element comprised a high proportion of the appeal site. It was also important that the development plan brief should not be prejudiced.
2. The inspector stated that there was no doubt that the pattern of retailing in the Medway towns was complicated. A retail warehouse, as proposed, would have an unacceptable impact and would severely undermine the vitality and viability of Gillingham town centre.
3. There had been nothing to justify quashing the decision on the grounds which had been put forward. The inspector had correctly identified the policies and the questions of fact, which he had to decide were entirely a matter of his planning judgment and were not to be disturbed by the court.
Jonathan Clay (instructed by Brachers) appeared for the applicants; Alun Alesbury (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondents, Gillingham Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
