Claimant local planning authority refusing second defendant’s planning application for development – Claimants serving enforcement notice – Second defendant appealing against refusal of consent and enforcement notice – Inspector allowing appeals – Claimant seeking to quash decision – Whether inspector failing to take material consideration into account – Claim allowed
In February 1998 the second defendant was granted planning consent for the erection of a dwelling-house with indoor pool, separate garage and ancillary landscaping. In December 1998 consent was granted for alterations to the design and appearance of the dwelling-house, which was, by then, under construction. In 1999, Runnymede Borough Council (the claimants) refused consent for the erection of an additional single garage and domestic store. In April 1999 a planning officer reported that the swimming pool was larger than permitted and that the garage and store were under construction. The claimants issued an enforcement notice.
The second defendant appealed against the notice and also, pursuant to section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, against the claimants’ refusal of planning permission for the garage and store. In a decision letter of May 2000, the inspector stated the main issues to be whether the development constituted inappropriate development in the green belt and, if so, whether very special circumstances warranted such development. He concluded that, although the increased floorspace taken up by the extra garage and store and the enlargement of the pool was small, it none the less “unacceptably increases the acceptable quantum of development for this site”. However, he found that very special circumstances warranted the retention of the additions. He therefore allowed both appeals, quashed the enforcement notice and granted conditional planning permission.
The claimants sought to quash the inspector’s decision pursuant to sections 288 and 289 of the 1990 Act. They submitted that the inspector had had three options in dealing with the appeals: (i) to uphold the enforcement notice and dismiss the section 78 appeal; (ii) to grant planning permission for the garage and store and allow the appeal against the notice upon ground (a) in section 174(2) of the 1990 Act, with the result that all the structures would remain, but that the inspector could remove GPDO rights by condition; or (iii) to uphold the enforcement notice in part and to allow the appeals in part, with the result that consent would be granted for the pool and garage in the reduced form permitted by the December 1998 consent, and that, at the same time, GPDO rights could be removed by condition.
It was apparent that the inspector had compared the effects upon the green belt of the first two options and preferred the second. The claimants submitted that if the inspector was minded to grant consent at all, the third option was to be preferred in terms of comparative green belt impact. They contended that the inspector had failed to set out his reasoning as to why he rejected that option, and that, accordingly, he had either failed to take a material consideration into account or, if he had considered it, failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting it.
Held: The claim was allowed.
The third option was canvassed at the inquiry and was a principal, controversial issue. The inspector might have found merit in the option had he considered it, and it might have better achieved his overall concern of reducing harm to the green belt. He had failed to take account of a material consideration. Alternatively, if he did take the option into account, he had failed to state his reasons in sufficient detail to enable a reader of his decision to know what conclusion he had reached.
Michael Druce (instructed by the solicitor to Runnymede Borough Council) appeared for the claimants; Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Eian Caws (instructed by Finers Stephens Innocent) appeared for the second defendant, Ascot Wood Ltd.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
