Inspector granting planning permission for supermarket development – Applicant operating retail outlet in town centre and seeking to quash decision – Whether inspector having proper regard to PPG 6 – Application dismissed
On 18 August 1998 the first respondent’s inspector granted planning permission to the second respondent for the development of a local supermarket of approximately 2,200 sq m gross floor area, together with associated parking on land at Strikes Garden Centre, Eaglescliffe. The applicant operated a store in the town centre, which the first respondent’s inspector accepted was “by some margin … the most important retail outlet in the centre”. The inspector further maintained that the proposed development would adversely affect the applicant’s store. Nevertheless, the inspector concluded that “the proposal would not significantly harm the vitality and viability of Yarm town centre or the Durham Lane local centre as a whole and would not, therefore, run counter to the retail impact criterion of Structure Plan policy SH3 or Local Plan policy SH15”.
The applicant challenged the inspector’s decision, pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, condending, inter alia, that the inspector failed to have proper regard to the Secretary of State’s own policies contained in PPG 6. Notably, the applicant submitted that the inspector erred in regarding the impact criterion in the structure and local plan policies as reflecting the advice in PPG 6. It was contended that one of the distinguishing features of the current PPG 6 was the disappearance of the reference to the impact on nearby town centres “as a whole”; this had been an important feature of at least the two previous versions of PPG6. The respondents submitted that while the precise wording may have changed, the current revision of PPG 6 clearly considered issues of vitality and viability by reference to the town centre as a whole.
Held: The application was dismissed.
Criticism of the inspector’s decision was wholly misplaced. The omission of the words “as a whole” in the current version of PPG 6 were not intended to introduce some significant change of policy, and, however one interpreted the new version, the inspector’s consideration of present matters was clearly in accordance with the policy laid down by PPG 6. It was difficult to see what the words “as a whole” had added to the earlier versions, since, in this context, a town centre could not be considered in any other way. The inspector was right to find no distinction of substance between PPG 6 and the relevant development plan policy. The decision was a well-reasoned and clear application of all the proper planning considerations.
Alun Aylesbury (instructed by Lawrence Jones) appeared for the applicant; David Elvin (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Michael Barnes QC (instructed by McGuinness Finch) appeared for the second respondent, Carter Commercial Developments; the third respondents, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
