Large town centre shop premises lying vacant for five years – Permission refused on appeal to Secretary of State for change of use to restaurant – Proposal favoured by town centre manager whose opinion mentioned only briefly in decision letter – Whether inspector erred by failing to give reasons for disagreeing with manager’s opinion – Appeal dismissed
The applicant’s shop premises in High Street, Bromley, part of the Bromley Town Centre Conservation Area, had a 12-m frontage and a depth of 40 m. In early 1996 the appellant owner sought planning permission and conservation area consent to change the use of the ground floor and basement from use as a retail shop (class A1) to use as a café or restaurant (class A3). As expressed in the local plan the policy was to allow such a change provided that the retail frontage would not be unreasonably interrupted. While considering the application the council consulted with the town centre manager (the TCM) who in the space of three sentences advised that the application was “very much in line” with town centre management strategy because: (a) it was unlikely that such a large unit, which had in part remained empty for some five years, would be let for retail use; and (b) the proposal would undoubtedly assist with the regeneration of the area by attracting in due course retailing business into small empty properties.
The owner appealed against the council’s refusal to the Secretary of State for the Environment whose inspector, after considering written representations, dismissed the appeal. By his decision letter dated January 9 1997 the inspector, after noting the presence of five eating establishments in the near vicinity of the shop, concluded that the proposal would, contrary to the local plan and PPG 6, undermine the character of the High Street as a shopping centre by creating an unreasonable interruption of the shopping frontage. The penultimate paragraph recited that account had been taken of the five-year period of non-occupation and of the support given to the proposal by the TCM, but went on to state that these considerations did not alter his earlier finding. The owner, relying, inter alia, on National Motor Cycle Museum v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] JPL 1157, challenged the decision on the ground that no reasons were disclosed for dismissing the two considerations offered by the TCM in support of his opinion.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
To warrant the closer analysis urged by the appellant the two considerations raised by the TCM had to be central to the inquiry, but there was nothing in the evidence or arguments put before the inspector to make them so. No evidence had been given as to the status or credentials of the TCM. No material other than the terse assertions of the TCM had been furnished to establish the poor prospects of letting the shop or the regenerative potential of the proposed development. The appellant had had the opportunity to explain why the shop had been unoccupied for five years, but he had not taken it. Accordingly the appellant could not complain that those considerations had been consigned to a “catch-all” paragraph.
Paul Stinchcombe (instructed by Avi Lehrer) appeared for the appellant; Natalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents, Bromley London Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
