Town and country planning — Local plan — Site within green belt — Objections — Inspector’s recommendations considered — Inspector recommending land use study — Planning appeal — Secretary of State makes error — Whether local planning authority had properly considered recommendations — Whether error vitiates Secretary of State’s decision
The Hertfordshire structure plan was approved in 1979. It provided for the maintenance of the green belt in the south of the country. St Albans District Council produced their first draft district plan in 1981; this stated that the whole of the district, with certain specified exceptions, would be treated as being within the metropolitan green belt. The appellants are the owners of a 39-acre site at London Colney which was included within the draft district plan as green belt. In 1981 the appellants put in objections to the draft plan, arguing that their site should be excluded from the green belt and that it should be available for development purposes. Those objections, and others, were considered at a public local inquiry. The appellants’ objections were put to the inspector by way of written representations.
The inspector recommended that the site should be excluded from the green belt and that a further study should be undertaken of the site’s future land use and access. However, the council, by its planning committee, after considering the recommendation and reports prepared by its officers, decided to retain the site within the green belt. The recommended study was not undertaken. A modification to the plan was published on January 20 1984. On January 11 1984 the appellants submitted two applications for outline planning permission for the development of the site; these were deemed to have been refused and an appeal to the Secretary of State was dismissed. The appellants brought proceedings challenging the modifications of the district plan, on the ground of a procedural irregularity, and appealed against the Secretary of State’s refusal of planning permission, on the grounds that the Secretary of State was in error and had taken into consideration irrelevant material.
Held (1) The decision of Otton J (July 29 1987) that the council had properly considered the inspector’s recommendations regarding the green belt was right: they had given them consideration and decided, as they were entitled to, to leave the site within the green belt. The appeal against that decision was dismissed. (2) However, in deciding to dismiss the appeals against the deemed refusal of planning permission, the Secretary of State was in error in concluding that the local planning authority had carried out a special study of the area of the site: they had not carried out such a study. Although Otton J had decided that the decision of the Secretary of State might not have been any different had he not made that mistake, the Secretary of State’s error was on a matter of significance to the decision-making process, and the appeal should be allowed and the question remitted for determination by the Secretary of State.
Hanks v Minister of Housing and Local Government
[1963] 1 QB 999 applied.
Michael Barnes QC, Charles George and Jonathan Karas (instructed by Denton Hall Burgin & Warrens) appeared for the appellants; David Pannick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent Secretary of State for the Environment; and Matthew Horton (instructed by the solicitor to the City and District of St Albans District Council) appeared for the respondent local planning authority.
