Applicants seeking permission for change of use of premises – Council refusing permission – Applicants appealing – Respondent dismissing appeal – Whether inspector erred in failing to consider conditions proposed by applicants – Application allowed
The applicants made a retrospective application to North Norfolk District Council for a change of use of premises from a betting office to a taxi office. In their application, they proposed that a condition could be attached to any permission prohibiting taxis from stopping outside the premises. The council refused permission on grounds of highway safety and the applicants appealed to the Secretary of State by way of written representations. Their representations included a further proposal for conditions limiting or prohibiting the applicant’s taxis from stopping or parking on the roads outside or near the premises. The inspector dismissed the appeal.
The applicant applied to quash the inspector’s decision, pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on the ground that the inspector had dismissed the appeal without considering the conditions that they had proposed. The respondent submitted, inter alia, that a condition in such wide terms would have been unworkable and unenforceable.
Held:The application was allowed.
The inspector’s thorough approach towards the appeal could not be criticised, particularly as he did not have the benefit of Davenport v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [1999] 2 PLR 96 before him. However, he was under a duty to consider whether a condition in such wide terms as to parking would have been desirable, valid and enforceable. He failed to do so and thereby failed to take a material consideration into account. Further, in light of the nature of the inspector’s error and the fact that the highway authority had been prepared to withdraw their objections if a workable condition could be imposed, it was not possible to say that the decision would have been the same on a redetermination. It was not, therefore, appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion to refuse the application: Top Deck Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] JPL 961 considered.
Peter Mantell-Sayer (instructed by Leathes Prior, of Norwich) appeared for the applicants; John Litton (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
