Applicants applying for planning permission for fitness-club developments – Applicants appealing against council’s failure to determine applications within prescribed period – Inspector dismissing appeals – Whether inspector erred in interpreting unitary development plan policy and failing to give adequate reasons – Application dismissed
The applicant (Next Generation) made planning applications to the second respondents for: (i) a racquets and fitness club, with associated parking and a community park, on land in Romford, Essex (site A); and (ii) for a similar proposal, which included a rifle range (site B). The applicant appealed to the first respondent against the failure of the second respondents to determine the applications within the prescribed period. A public inquiry was held.
In his decision letter, the inspector identified the main issues as: “Whether or not the proposed developments would:… secondly, result in the loss of open space to the detriment of the existing character of the area; thirdly, fail to provide adequately for the recreational needs of the community; and fourthly, impinge on the residential amenities of any neighbouring dwelling”. In respect of the second issue, the inspector found that: “A building of such mass and position would severely impact on the open nature of the site”. The inspector concluded that neither proposal accorded with the unitary development plan (UDP) policy ENV1(a), which “requires the appearance of all new developments to be compatible with the character of… the surrounding area”. In respect of the third issue, the inspector concluded that the proposal failed to accord with policies in the UDP, which sought to retain and enhance existing facilities, “not least for the reason that the pupils of Ardleigh Green Junior School would be disadvantaged if the playing field at the site were to be developed”. In relation to the fourth issue, the inspector concluded that the parking areas were shown close to residential dwellings and that residential amenities would be eroded. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.
The applicant sought to quash the inspector’s decision pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, principally on grounds that the inspector had erred in his interpretation of policy ENV1(a), and had failed to provide adequate reasons for his conclusions.
Held: The application was dismissed.
Nothing turned on the way in which the inspector expressed policy ENV1(a). His paraphrase accorded with the policy, and, in any event, his conclusion that the proposal “would severely impact on the open nature of the site” supported his view that the terms of the policy would not be met. The inspector’s concerns about the disadvantages to the school were well within the knowledge of the applicant. The decision letter had to be read as though by an informed reader, therefore the inspector’s reasons were sufficiently clear. It could not be said that the applicant had suffered any prejudice due to inadequate reasoning. The inspector’s concerns about the effect upon residential amenity were self-evident, and there was no need for him to elaborate upon them in any more detail.
Peter Village (instructed by Howard Kennedy) appeared for the applicant; David Forsdick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents did not appear and were not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
