Development — Open countryside — Application for planning permission for two houses — Local planning authority refusing permission — Proposal held contrary to planning policies — Inspector allowing appeal on grounds of “rounding-off” existing development — Whether inspector applying correct criteria — Whether statutory provisions to be referred to in express terms — Whether particular circumstances justifying exception to planning policies — Inspector’s decision upheld
The appeal site was on an acre of land opposite Newbiggin Farmhouse, Newbiggin, near Ulverston, Cumbria. The proposed development was for two dwellings. Newbiggin was a rural settlement surrounded on three sides by open fields and the appeal site comprised garden land opposite to one of two farms, the land being presently occupied by storage buildings. The local planning authority refused planning permission on the ground that the proposal was contrary to policies A3 and A4 of the Cartmel and Furness local plan and policy H8 of the Cumbria and Lake District joint structure plan.
Policies A4 and H8 stated, inter alia, (a) that new residential development in the open country or in settlements not allocated for development would only be permitted for those engaged in agriculture or forestry; or (b) where there were exceptional circumstances which would warrant the granting of permission. No such exceptional circumstances existed in this case, the local planning authority decided.
On appeal to the inspector, by written representations, planning permission was granted as the inspector held that the development would result in a rounding off and infilling of existing settlement and so would not result in an extension of development into open countryside. The planning authority applied to quash the decision, submitting that the inspector misread policy A4 or failed to understand the distinction between policies A3 and A4; that it was necessary to conserve the countryside and channel development to already existing settlements; that insufficient heed had been given to section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which called for the development plan to be followed except where material considerations indicated otherwise; and he failed to give adequate reasons for his decision.
Held The application was refused.
1. It was clear that in giving his reasons and in dealing with the planning proposal as an exception to the policies, the inspector concluded that the proposal would not result in development into the open countryside and that he recognised the need to protect the countryside for its own sake.
2. What would amount to an exception to the development plans which limited development in each case would be a matter of judgment based on all considerations. While the exception under appeal might be more liberal, it was for the inspector to decide whether in the particular case the proposal should amount to an exception.
3. Further, the court was satisfied that the inspector understood the distinction between policies A3 and A4 and correctly treated the question of “rounding off” — normally acceptable under policy A3 — as an exception to policy A4.
4. Although the question of channelling development to existing settlements was not expressly referred to, it was considered in the context of environmental considerations and in the practical implications of the existing infrastructure, as well as the effect on public services. The omission was not serious in that the decision was closely involved with environmental issues which were correctly seen as the main issue in the case.
5. Moreover, the inspector was aware that applications for “rounding off” should not lead to development in the open countryside and that the character and appearance of the area ought to be maintained so that the argument that the decision would set an undesirable precedent could not be sustained.
6. It was not necessary for the inspector to refer to section 54A expressly in terms. What was needed was to look at the decision letter as a whole and to see if it was consistent with the section. It was clear from the way that he proceeded that there was sufficient realisation that policy A4 should be followed unless material considerations justified an exception. The statutory provisions had been correctly applied.
7. With regard to reasons, an inspector did not have to give reasons which would give guidelines for future applications. What had to be done was for the inspector to set out sufficiently clearly what the material factors were and how much weight was to be given to those factors in the particular case. In the instant case, the reasons were adequate to justify an exception to policy plans. The local planning authority were to take those reasons on board when deciding future applications with their own individual circumstances and material considerations.
Anthony Crean (instructed by the solicitor to South Lakeland District Council) appeared for the local planning authority; David Holgate (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondent did not appear and was not represented.
