Development — Planning control — Claimant applying for planning permission for use of green-belt land for off-site airport car parking — Secretary of State calling in application — Planning inspector holding public inquiry — Application refused — Whether inspector erred in failing to take account of unchallenged evidence — Sections 77 and 288 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 — Claim allowed
The claimant applied for temporary planning permission to use two sites as off-site car parking for users of Gatwick airport, for a period of five years. Both sites were in the green belt, but one site was already the subject of an earlier grant of planning permission, and was to be used as a car park for 215 cars. The application was backed by the local planning authority, but, since both sites were in the green belt, the Secretary of State called in the application for his own decision, under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A public inquiry was held, but there was no effective opposition to the application.
The claimant argued that there was unchallenged evidence of a need for the proposed car-parking facility, which amounted to a very special circumstance that outweighed any harm to the green belt that might result if permission were to be granted. However, the planning inspector took the view that there was no compelling need for extra car parking, as there was evidence of sufficient available space at the airport to meet its future parking requirements. The Secretary of State accordingly refused the application for planning permission. The claimant brought proceedings, under section 288 of the 1990 Act, to quash the Secretary of State’s decision. He said that the inspector had erred in failing to take account of evidence that the airport already experienced a shortfall in car parking facilities that could not be met by the development of extra on-site parking.
Held: The claim was allowed.
The inspector had failed to grapple with the evidence put forward by a civil engineer, on behalf of the claimant, that a shortfall in parking facilities already existed. It was not a question of looking into the future, as the problem was already there. The airport needed its own land for purposes other than car parking, and, according to the results of a survey, was prepared to provide car parking only to the minimum level necessary. In failing to explain why he had decided that he could not accept the expert evidence, the inspector had failed to give adequate reasons and had disregarded a major part of the material before him. Since the inspector had said that the issue of availability of space was determinative of the application, his decision could not prevail.
Clive Newberry QC (instructed by Hewitson Becke & Shaw, of Northampton) appeared for the claimant; Michael Bedford (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
