Development — Refusal of permission — Adequacy of reasons — Proposal for extension to floor space — Overtrading — Quantitative and qualitative need — Failure to accept inspector’s recommendations — Whether Secretary of State giving adequate reasons for decision — Claim allowed
The claimant applied for planning permission to extend an existing retail store outside the town centre. The proposed development consisted of 1367.5m2 of additional floor space and was designed to improve the level of facilities available to customers, decrease over-trading within the store and increase the range of convenience goods on offer.
The council considered the planning application in detail in the light of a retail assessment provided in support of the application, a critique of that assessment and further retail evidence and, in the absence of any retail objections, decided that a need existed for the development.
The secretary of state directed that the planning application should be referred to him rather than to the local planning authority, pursuant to section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The application was considered in light of PPG 6, and parliamentary guidance on qualitative and quantitative need. The inspector had specifically found a substantive quantitative need for the proposed development, whether assessed on a convenience goods, or convenience business basis. Moreover, qualitative considerations further strengthened the case for the proposed development on grounds of need.
The secretary of state found a qualitative need for the proposed development, but did not agree that the factors indicating a qualitative need could also be regarded as an indicator of a quantitative need for additional floor space. Further, he disagreed with the inspector’s view that the estimated growth in convenience expenditure in the primary catchment area demonstrated a quantitative need. Accordingly, he concluded that, contrary to a key objective of PPG 6, a quantitative need for the proposal had not been demonstrated. The claimant applied, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to quash that decision.
Held: The claim was allowed.
Overtrading might be regarded as an indicator of quantitative need, depending on the particular case. The inspector had accepted overtrading was taking place in the store, namely long queues at the checkout, combined with a qualitative need at the appeal site. Given the evidence of overtrading, and the detailed reasons given by the inspector, the secretary of state should have provided a detailed explanation as to why he disagreed with the inspector.
There might be circumstances in which overtrading in a particular store would not be representative of overtrading in the primary catchment area, for example, where a store was situated on a commuter route and attracted trade from outside the area. The absence of such evidence in the present case, coupled with the finding that the proposed development would have no adverse impact on the town centre, might amount to a proper indication of a quantitative need.
Moreover, evidence establishing a qualitative need might also be relied upon to establish a quantitative need. A decision maker was required to take into account all the relevant evidence and, by failing to do so, the secretary of state had failed to have regard to a material consideration. Accordingly, his decision would be quashed.
Timothy Corner QC and Lisa Busch (instructed by Denton Wilde Sapte) appeared for the claimant; Natalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
