Reserved matters — Approval necessary for access — Inspector dismissing appeal against non-determination — Inspector not satisfied about access — Whether inspector failed to consider legal submissions — Whether grant of outline permission must have implicitly accepted existing access — Whether reserved matters can be refused where satisfactory access can be provided only over land not in the ownership or control of the applicant — Appeal allowed
The appellant company has the benefit of an outline planning permission for some 90 holiday homes on the Isle of Wight; the permission was granted by the Secretary of State for the Environment on appeal and was subject to certain reserved matters. One of these reserved matters was that approval was required for the means of access to the site. The appellant submitted details of a means of access over land in its control, and because the local planning authority failed to determine the application within the time-limit, the appellant appealed to the Secretary of State. It was acknowledged that the access proposed by the appellant was unsatisfactory, but the appellant submitted to the inspector appointed to hear the appeal that that situation must have been implicitly appreciated by the Secretary of State when he granted the outline permission. Accordingly it would be wrong for the inspector to canvass solutions or arrangements which involved providing an access over land not in the control of the appellant. The inspector dismissed the appeal and the appellant appealed under section 245 of the 1971 Act, contending that the inspector had not properly considered this submission or given any adequate reasons for his decision.
Held The appeal was allowed.
The inspector had failed to deal with the legal submission before him to the effect that when the Secretary of State granted the outline planning permission, it must have been within his contemplation that the appellant had only an unsatisfactory access and that the company could not be required by a planning condition to resolve the access problem on some adjoining land not in its control.
Grampian Regional Council v City of Aberdeen District Council
[1984] JPL 590 considered.
Trevelyan Thomas (instructed by Titmuss, Sainer & Webb) appeared for the appellant; and Ian Burnett (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment. The second respondents, Medina Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
