Green belt — Application for planning permission for hotel on land adjacent to motorway junction — Site in green belt — Whether very special circumstances to justify development — Application called in for decision by Secretary of State — Inspector recommending approval — Secretary of State refusing to grant permission — Secretary of State not satisfied that need for hotel incapable of being met by development on sites outside green belt — Whether reasons adequate — Whether Secretary of State required to weigh harm to green belt from proposed development against advantages of hotel on application site
The
appellants, Scottish & Newcastle Breweries plc, applied to the second
respondents, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, for planning permission
for a 150-bedroom hotel, with restaurant and leisure and conference facilities,
on land in the green belt adjacent to junction 31 on the M1 motorway near
Rotherham. The application was called in for decision by the first respondent,
the Secretary of State for the Environment, and an inquiry was held at which
the planning authority supported the application. The appellants contended that
there was a need for a further four-star hotel in the Sheffield/Rotherham area,
that the site was ideal, having excellent road access, and that the hotel would
assist the urban regeneration of Rotherham. The inspector concluded that the
site did not make any great contribution to the green belt and its development
would therefore not detract significantly from the function of the green belt
in the area. The Secretary of State disagreed with his inspector’s conclusions
and refused to grant planning permission. He referred in his decision letter to
the importance attached by the Government to green belts and said that he was
not satisfied that the alleged need for the hotel was incapable of being met by
development on sites outside the green belt or that the grant of planning
permission for hotel development in the green belt was an appropriate or
effective mechanism to stimulate urban regeneration in town centres some miles
distant. An application by the appellants to quash the Secretary of State’s
decision was dismissed by Roch J on October 5 1990 and they appealed.
1. The
Secretary of State’s reasoning was adequate. He had appreciated the issue in
the case, namely whether there were very special circumstances which would
justify the proposed development on the particular site in the green belt. If
he was not so satisfied the green belt designation was conclusive against the
development. In saying that, he was not satisfied that the need for a four-star
hotel was incapable of being met on sites outside the green belt, the Secretary
of State was not
hotel accommodation in the area or as to what sites might or might not in the
future become available outside the green belt to satisfy that demand: see p
151C-H. On the question of stimulating urban regeneration, his decision was adequately
plain and intelligible to any reasonable businessman whose application had been
thereby refused and further detail was not required: see pp 151H-152B.
2. Having
concluded that he was not satisfied that the need for the hotel could not be
met on sites outside the green belt, the Secretary of State was not obliged to
carry out a further balancing exercise by weighing the small harm to the green
belt which would be occasioned by the proposed development against the
advantages of an hotel on the particular site. The land was green belt, which
carried with it the amenity, even if the hotel was not conspicuously built,
that it was undeveloped rural land in part of the green belt in an area which
needed green belt: see p 152C-F.
Decision of
Roch J affirmed.
No cases are
referred to in the judgments
Appeal against
decision of Roch J
This was an
appeal by Scottish & Newcastle Breweries plc against a decision of Roch J
on October 5 1990 whereby he dismissed their application under section 245 of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (section 288 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990) to quash a decision dated December 21 1989 of the first
respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment, who had refused to
grant planning permission for a 150-bedroom hotel, with restaurant and leisure
and conference facilities, on land in the green belt adjacent to the M1
motorway at junction 31 near Aston-cum-Aughton, South Yorkshire.
Bartlett QC and Sebastian Head (instructed by Vallance Lickfolds) appeared for
the appellants, Scottish & Newcastle Breweries plc.
Ouseley (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first
respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment.
respondents, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, did not appear and were
not represented.
following judgments were delivered.
DILLON LJ: This is an appeal by Scottish & Newcastle Breweries plc against
a decision of Roch J given on October 5 1990 whereby on an application under
section 245 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 he refused to quash a
decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment of December 21 1989
which had refused the applicants planning permission for a 150-bedroom hotel,
with restaurant and leisure and conference facilities, on land adjacent to the
M1 motorway at junction 31 near Aston-cum-Aughton, a village near Rotherham.
The land in question is in the green belt. It is situate in the south-western
segment of the motorway interchange where the A57 trunk road, which
is a main dual-carriageway road, crosses the M1. On the north-eastern corner of
the quadrant of the interchange there is a motorway maintenance compound and
then some houses. On the north-west quadrant there are some houses, a garage
and a farm and then some open land until the village is reached. This was in
the south-west quadrant. It is undeveloped land but it has the M1 by its
eastern boundary, the A57 by its north-western boundary and woodland
surrounding it to the south-east and south-west.
The
application by Scottish & Newcastle for the hotel (for, in fact, their
subsidiary, Thistle Hotels Ltd) was called in, quite properly, under section 35
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 [section 77 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990], by the Secretary of State because of the possible effects
of the development on the green belt. A public inquiry was therefore held by an
inspector, Mr Horton, on April 19 and 20 1989. At that inquiry the local
authority, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, cogently supported Scottish
& Newcastle’s application and various matters were canvassed which are set
out in the inspector’s report. The inspector was merely appointed to hold the
inquiry and report. He was not appointed to make any decision. It was for the
Secretary of State to make the decision and it is common ground that he was not
bound to agree with the conclusions of the inspector.
The
inspector’s conclusions were briefly that this particular site, though green
belt land, did not make any great contribution to the green belt. It is
self-contained he said, with protective trees or rising ground on three sides
and while its rural character would be lost, the loss would be well contained,
and the proposal would not cause actual loss of amenity to any resident or
actual harm to the natural environment of the area. That was subject to certain
minor matters of environmental protection to which it is unnecessary to refer
on this appeal.
The applicants
contended that there was a need, for a further high-quality four-star hotel in
the area of Rotherham and Sheffield; that this site was amply fitted to satisfy
that need having excellent transport access from the A57 and the motorway; that
the need would be exacerbated by various sporting activities in Sheffield which
have since taken place and could well be met by Scottish & Newcastle; and
that the urban regeneration which was hoped for, for the Metropolitan Borough
of Rotherham, would be assisted by the provision of further hotels of the
proposed quality which would attract and satisfy the needs of businessmen and
others concerned with the rebirth and prosperity of Rotherham.
The Secretary
of State did not agree with the inspector’s conclusions. His decision letter is
fairly short and stresses the importance of the green belt. In para 4 he says:
The Secretary
of State accepts the Inspector’s findings of fact in paragraph 32 and notes his
conclusions in paragraphs 33 to 34. He is not convinced however that the
factors put forward in this case amount to the very special circumstances required
to justify this type of development in the Green Belt.
He then refers
to the importance which the Government attaches to green belts and refers also
to hotels not being one of the purposes specially mentioned in PPG2 as being
acceptable as developments in the green belt and says:
. . . it is
necessary to consider whether there are any sufficiently special circumstances
to justify such development.
In para 6 he
states:
The site of
this application is within the Green Belt in the development plan and also in
the emerging, though not yet adopted, Green Belt Local Plan. The status of this
site as Green Belt was not an issue in the public inquiry into the Local Plan
which was held in 1988 nor was any change to it proposed in the modifications
considered at a public inquiry in November 1989. . . .
7. The
Secretary of State notes that a case has been made that there is an unmet
demand for 4-star hotel accommodation in the area. He accepts that the policy
of the applicants when building new hotels is to use spacious sites in pleasant
green field locations close to the motorway and trunk road network. He is not
however satisfied that the alleged need for 4-star hotel accommodation is
incapable of being met by development on sites outside the Green Belt.
8. The
applicant has suggested and the Inspector has accepted that the site makes
little contribution to the Green Belt and its development would therefore not
detract significantly from the function of the Green Belt in this area. The
fact that the site has been retained within the Green Belt in the Green Belt
Local Plan indicates, however, that the site does make a contribution to the
Green Belt in this area. The Secretary of State therefore disagrees with the
Inspector’s conclusion. Furthermore if the local planning authority consider
that the site contributes little to the Green Belt and they wish to remove the
site from the Green Belt, it is the Secretary of State’s view that issues of
this sort are more appropriately addressed through the development plan
process.
Then, in para
9, which is also part of his grounds for decision, he says:
The applicant
has suggested that this development would assist urban regeneration and
therefore support one of the identified purposes of Green Belts. The Inspector
has agreed that the development would assist commercial growth in the
conurbation. The Secretary of State is not, however, satisfied that the grant
of planning permission for hotel development in the Green Belt is a mechanism
which is either appropriate or effective for stimulating urban regeneration in
town centres some miles distant.
The grounds of
appeal in the notice of appeal are substantially the same grounds, though
possibly in a slightly different order, as those put to Roch J and those set
out in Mr Bartlett’s skeleton argument. As he accepts, they tend to overlap
because they tend to be different ways of stating the same points. One point is
that the Secretary of State had
followed by saying:
. . . the
Secretary of State had failed to take account of . . . the degree of
contribution made by the site to the Green Belt and the degree of damage that
the development of the site would cause to the Green Belt . . .
There is also
criticism of the grounds for the decision as set out in the decision letter,
which necessarily overlaps because it involves saying that if the Secretary of
State has carried out the exercises covered in grounds 1 and 2 of the notice of
appeal, he has not set out the results sufficiently clearly in his decision
letter. It is said that he has not given proper, adequate and intelligible
reasons for rejecting the inspector’s conclusions. It is also suggested that
the conclusion in regard to the building of hotels does not fit in with the
findings in the inspector’s report. I do not need to go into that in detail. As
I see it, however, the Secretary of State has indicated what the problem is in
his decision letter and has clearly appreciated it, namely are there very
special circumstances which would justify this development on this site in the
green belt?
Of course, the
fact that the land is within the green belt necessarily becomes conclusive if
the Secretary of State is not satisfied that there are the very special
circumstances which are alleged as warranting the development. That relates
first and foremost to the demand for a four-star hotel. Here the Secretary of
State had said that he is not satisfied that the alleged need for a four-star
hotel is incapable of being met by development on sites outside the green belt.
As I read the inspector’s report, he had not found that the need was incapable
of being met by development on sites outside the green belt. There had been
mention of difficulties but no absolute conclusion. As far as the Secretary of
State is concerned, of course, he has the difficulty in these sort of cases
that, the applicant for planning permission being supported by the local
authority, there is no devil’s advocate to offer detailed evidence at the
planning inquiry to the contrary and to go to the considerable expense that
that may involve. There were indeed certain objectors but nobody in the
position of the local authority, where the local authority have refused
planning permission and the applicant for the planning permission is appealing
to the Secretary of State.
Contrary to
the point to which Mr Bartlett’s submissions appeared to be tending, I do not
see that there is any obligation on the Secretary of State to make specific
findings as to the extent of the demand for four-star hotel accommodation in
the area or to make specific findings as to what sites may or may not in the
future become available outside the green belt for satisfying that demand. I
take the view that he is entitled if he is not satisfied that the demand is
incapable of being met by development on sites outside the green belt, to state
that and leave it there. The businessmen who run Scottish & Newcastle
Breweries plc are well capable of understanding that and they are not entitled
to require the Secretary of State to act as a useful consultant to come up with
alternative sites for them.
In the same
way, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the
effective for stimulating urban regeneration in town centres some miles
distant, I do not see that the Secretary of State is required to go into any
further detail on that point. Undoubtedly there may be a relation between urban
regeneration and the building of suitable hotels inside or outside the green
belt; again those may be matters of degree, and it may be a matter of the stage
which the urban regeneration is about to reach. But, where the hotel is some
miles from the relevant town centres of Rotherham and Sheffield, the impact of
the one hotel on urban regeneration may be difficult to assess and I do not see
that the Secretary of State is called on to go into those sort of matters in
detail in giving a decision which seems to be adequately plain and intelligible
to any reasonable businessman whose application has been thereby refused.
The main point
that Mr Bartlett has latched on to is the failure – as it is said – of the
Secretary of State to go in any detail into the inspector’s conclusion that
this site makes little or virtually no contribution to the green belt in this
area. It is suggested by Mr Bartlett that even though the Secretary of State
was not satisfied that the need for four-star hotel accommodation was incapable
of being met by development on sites outside the green belt or even if he was
satisfied that it could be met on sites outside the green belt, he should none
the less have weighed the small harm to the green belt occasioned by the
proposed development on this site against the advantages of having a hotel in
rural surroundings on this quadrant of the motorway interchange as an
alternative to looking for an hotel on a site outside the green belt and only
if he felt by that further balancing exercise that the amenities of the green
belt would be too damaged to permit the construction of this hotel should he
have refused the planning permission. For my part, I do not agree that the
Secretary of State owed any such further duty. He had to consider whether there
were sufficient circumstances to warrant the granting of planning permission.
He had the fact that the land was green belt land, which carried with it the
amenity, even if the hotel was not conspicuously built, that it was undeveloped
rural land in part of the green belt in an area which needed green belt. If he
was then not satisfied that the proposed hotel could not be built on land which
was outside the green belt, I do not see that he need carry out yet a further
balancing exercise to conclude that it should be built on this site inside the
green belt.
I agree with
the judge that this decision letter is quite adequate for the purposes of this
appeal. I also regard it as not very satisfactory that the validity of a
decision letter in one case should be tested against decision letters on other
circumstances in other cases where there has been a reported decision; the
decisions merely give the principles. I find this letter sufficient and I would
dismiss the appeal.
STEYN LJ: I agree. I would like only to add how much I was assisted by Roch
J’s judgment which, in my view, admirably dealt with the matter.
SIR
CHRISTOPHER SLADE: I agree with both judgments and
wish to add only a few words of my own.
In my
judgment, having regard to the tentatively expressed conclusion of the
inspector in para 38 of the report, in particular his use of the phrase ‘may
be’ rather than ‘will be’ in the penultimate sentence, the Secretary of State was
fully entitled to say, as he did in para 7 of his decision letter, that he was
not satisfied
. . . that
the alleged need for 4-star hotel accommodation is incapable of being met by
development on sites outside the Green Belt.
I do not say
that this conclusion on the part of the Secretary of State inevitably led to
the dismissal of the application for planning permission, having regard to the
relevant planning policy, of the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, having
regard to that policy which required the proof of very special circumstances to
justify this type of development in the green belt, I think that the onus fell
on the applicant to adduce additional very special circumstances if his
application were to succeed and that otherwise rejection of the application was
inevitable.
In para 42 of
his report the inspector summarised the additional asserted very special
circumstances on which the applicants had relied in support of their
application and on which he relied in reaching his conclusion. The Secretary of
State, as I read paras 8 and 9 of his decision letter, was dealing seriatim
with the most pertinent of these points raised in para 42 of the inspector’s
report and expressing the view, as he was entitled to do, that they did not
suffice to justify the development.
In the course
of his able argument, Mr Bartlett, if I may say so, did not, in my view, attach
sufficient weight to the fact that paras 8 and 9 of the decision letter were
clearly intended to echo and deal with the points raised in para 42 of the
inspector’s report. In general terms, in my view, the Secretary of State did
duly consider the extent of the harm to the green belt interests which would
result from the development, and the advantages to be derived from the
development and came to the conclusion that those advantages did not outweigh
the harm to the green belt interests sufficiently to constitute the very
special circumstances which would entitle him to depart from the general green
belt policy. In my judgment, he was entitled to take that view and, in doing
so, he did not misdirect himself by departing from his own policy. In my
judgment, the judge reached the right conclusion on all four main points raised
by the appellants and I, too, would dismiss this appeal.
Appeal
dismissed with costs.