Planning application — Unitary development plan — Refusal of permission for residential development — Inspector allowing appeal against refusal — Local planning authority applying to quash decision – Whether inspector failing to give sufficient weight to fact that site safeguarded by emerging unitary plan — Section 288 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990
A developer applied for planning permission for a housing development in Cheshire. The land comprised 5.8ha of sloping uncultivated field that was bound by residential development to the south and west, and by ribbon development to the north and east. It was a clearly defined site, which was not in the green belt, but was safeguarded none the less. The claimant local planning authority refused permission, and the developer’s appeal to the Secretary of State was dismissed on the recommendation of the planning inspector.
The developer appealed against that decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The inspector’s decision was subsequently quashed by consent on the ground that he had failed to give clear and adequate reasons. Following a second inquiry, the inspector allowed the developer’s appeal, subject to conditions, having particular regard to the need for affordable housing in the area, that being the main thrust of PPG 3.
The claimants applied to quash the inspector’s decision on the basis that the inspector had: (i) misdirected himself in law; (ii) given inadequate reasons; (iii) acted with a lack of proportionality; and (iv) acted irrationally in regard to the development of the site. In particular, the claimants argued that the inspector had failed to give sufficient weight to the emerging unitary development plan (UDP), which indicated that the site should be safeguarded unless there was an essential need for development. Further, the inspector had wrongly assumed that the land would eventually be made available for housing development, whereas that had not been the claimants’ intention. There was a strong presumption against allocation for development, and land would be released only after a review of the UDP.
Held: The application was granted, and the decision quashed.
1. The inspector had not fully understood the purpose of the safeguarding provisions of the emerging UDP, which was not a mere material consideration. It was incumbent upon the inspector to read the plan as a whole. He had failed to do so, or to make a proper interpretation of the policies. As a consequence, he had not considered whether the development proposed in the application before him did, or did not, accord with the emerging UDP and the purpose of safeguarding land.
2. The inspector had found that the main thrust of PPG 3 was the limiting of overall housing provision and the sequential approach to the selection of sites. Having noted that the primary aim was the overall numbers and the protection of greenfield sites, and that the policies relating to affordable housing were secondary, he had accepted that the two were in conflict, but had followed the secondary policies rather than the primary one. He gave no reasons as to why he had done so, and the status of those policies was therefore unclear. The reasoning was so obscure as to leave real and substantial doubts in the mind of the informed reader as to the reasons behind the decision: Givaudan & Co Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1967] 1 WLR 250 applied.
Colin Crawford (instructed by the solicitor to Warrington Borough Council) appeared for the claimants; Ian Dove (instructed by Daniels Haddon) appeared for the third defendants; the first and second defendants did not appear and were not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
