Claimant appealing against refusal of planning permission for development – Inspector concluding inappropriate development in green belt and dismissing appeal – Whether inspector failing to deal with a material issue – Claim allowed
The claimants applied for planning permission for a development, comprising a new toilet and changing room extension to their swimming pool. At that time, their property fell within the green belt. The second defendant council refused permission. One of their reasons was that the development was contrary to conservation and heritage area policies in the local plan. The claimants appealed.
At the appeal, the inspector identified one of the main issues to be the council’s approach to green-belt policy. He was told that the council gave the green-belt policy relatively little weight compared to the heritage area policies, and that they were considering removing the green belt designation from the New Forest Heritage Area, which included the appeal site. However, the inspector was not told of the changes in the structure plan, which removed green-belt status from all areas covered by the New Forest Heritage Area, and also the proposal to include the area within the national park.
The inspector found that the development would not be contrary to conservation and heritage policies. However, he considered PPG 2 and found, inter alia, that there were no “very special circumstances” that provided “sufficient positive benefits to outweigh the harm that would be caused to the green belt”. The inspector concluded that the proposal would be an inappropriate development in the green belt and would be contrary to the strong local and national policies. Consequently, he dismissed the appeal. The claimant sought to quash the inspector’s decision pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the ground that, inter alia, the inspector failed to deal with a material issue.
Held: The claim was allowed.
In the very unusual and special circumstances of the instant case, in which the inspector was not made aware of the changes in the structure plan, he made a material error in his decision, and it was appropriate for the court to intervene. The removal of the appeal site area as green-belt land, and also the proposal to include the area within the national park were material considerations. Had the inspector been given this information, it would have formed a principal, important, controversial issue, which his decision letter would have had to have addressed. The inspector may have reached a different conclusion. The decision was to be quashed.
Kevin Leigh (instructed by Edge Leyden Ellis, of Bournemouth) appeared for the claimant; Natalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants, New Forest District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
