Council failing to determine application for change of use within required period – Appeal to inspector – Inspector allowing appeal – Applicant council seeking to quash decision – Whether inspector failing to reach a conclusion on whether proposed development accorded with relevant structure plan and local plan policies – Application allowed
The second respondent appealed to an inspector against the failure of the applicant council to determine an application for change of use of agricultural land to a caravan park within the required period. In his decision letter, the inspector stated the main issue to be “the effect the proposed development would have on: (a) the appearance and character of the countryside; (b) nature conservation interests; and (c) the living conditions of nearby residents”. In addressing the proposal’s effect on the countryside, the inspector concluded, inter alia: “Whilst I consider that the potential of a caravan site of this size to damage the appearance and character of the countryside is high, the proposed site is well contained.” With regard to the effect on the living conditions of local residents, he concluded: “in so far as the proposals would harm the appearance and character of the countryside, they would have a deleterious effect on the living conditions”. The inspector allowed the appeal and granted planning permission.
Policy E2 of the North Yorkshire County structure plan stated that “development in the open countryside outside the national parks will normally be permitted only where it relates to ‘small scale’ proposals and provided it would not harm the character and appearance, general amenity or nature conservation interests of the surrounding area”. Policy 70 of the local plan stated that development should be “small scale, low key, low impact”. The applicant council sought to quash the decision letter, pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Two issues arose: (i) whether the inspector failed to reach a finding as to whether the proposals were “small scale”, for the purposes of policy E2 of the structure plan and policy 70 of the local plan; and (ii) the adequacy of the inspector’s compliance with his duties under section 54A of the 1990 Act.
Held: The application was allowed.
The inspector made no express finding on the issue of whether the proposal was “small scale”. Reading the decision letter as a whole, it was not certain as to what finding was being made. The inspector found either that the proposal was not small scale or that the criteria of “scale” in policies E2 and 70 were subsumed into the criteria of harm to the surrounding area. In any event, either would have invalidated the decision. The inspector had failed to perform his statutory duty under section 54A of the Act. Consideration of the aims and essence of the policies, in contrast to the policies themselves, was not sufficient to fulfill that duty. The matter was to be reconsidered.
John Barrett (instructed by the solicitor to North Yorkshire County Council) appeared for the applicants; John Hobson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent; the second respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
