Applicants seeking to develop near motorway – Inspector recommending conditional planning permission – Change in circumstances regarding motorway – Respondent refusing planning permission – Whether lawful decision – Application dismissed
Luton Town Football Club occupied a ground at Kenilworth Road that was thought to be unsafe and inadequate. The club wished to relocate. Kohlerdome and Whitbread plc (the applicants) made proposals for a new stadium, and an application was submitted for outline planning permission for construction at a site adjoining junctions 10 and 10A of the M1. The respondent’s inspector recommended that permission be granted, subject to conditions. The development was to commence only when work to widen the motorway between junctions 6A and 10 had been started and could not operate at full capacity until these works were completed, since “the proposed development would be a significant generator of traffic”. Following a local inquiry the circumstances changed, in that the proposed road-widening works were reassessed as part of the government’s general reassessment of the national roads programme. As a result, the widening of the M1 between junctions 6A and 10 was remitted for further study and withdrawn in respect of junctions 10 to 14.
On 19 November 1998 the respondent refused planning permission. In his decision letter, the respondent found “the outcome of the roads review constitutes a significant change of circumstances . . . the decision not to proceed with the proposals to improve the M1 . . . weighs very heavily against the scheme”. Pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the applicants challenged the respondent’s decision on two grounds. First, that the respondent had failed to give proper consideration to the M1 improvements, and should have concluded that an “embargo on development” could not reasonably be imposed. Second, that the respondent had failed to give proper consideration to granting permission for a reduced scheme, namely a stadium with 12,000 seats.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. The assertion that there was an effective embargo was misconceived. At all times the acceptability of the development had been dependent upon the road-widening works. The respondent had not had regard to a speculative or unformulated change of policy. It was a matter for the respondent’s planning judgment whether such a change weighed heavily or not at all against the proposed development, and whether the imposition of conditions was appropriate.
2. All aspects of the evidence had been directed to a 20,000-seater scheme. Therefore, as a matter of planning judgment, the respondent was entitled to conclude that there was insufficient evidence before him to make a decision in respect of the reduced scheme. It was open to the applicants to seek permission for a reduced development on the site. However, they would have to provide further information if such an application were to have any degree of success.
Graham Stoker (instructed by Denton Hall) appeared for the applicants; David Elvin (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
