Statutory duty under section 277(8) of 1971 Act — Proposed development neutral in affecting conservation area — Whether “preservation” has narrow meaning apt to include only development bringing positive contribution or wider meaning of bringing no harm — Wider meaning preferred — Appeal by Secretary of State for the Environment allowed
By a decision of July 13 1989 an inspector appointed by the appellant, the Secretary of State for the Environment, allowed an appeal on written representations of the second respondents, the Carlisle Diocesan Parsonages Board, and granted outline planning permission for the erection of a new vicarage within the curtilage of the existing vicarage at Priest Lane, Cartmel, Cumbria. The application of the first respondents, South Lakeland District Council, to quash the Secretary of State’s decision was allowed by Mr Lionel Read QC (sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen’s Bench Division — February 26 1990) on the ground that the inspector had not had proper regard to section 277(8) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The Secretary of State appealed.
Held The appeal was allowed.
The inspector found that neither the character nor the appearance of the conservation area would be harmed by the proposed vicarage, and the character of the area would remain preserved notwithstanding the development. In the absence of any authority binding on the court as to the meaning of “preserving” in section 277(8), a wide meaning should be given; the character or appearance of an area can properly be said to be preserved by development where they are not harmed. The legislature did not intend the word preserve to have a narrow meaning as referring to development intended to have a positive contribution to preservation and to exclude development of a neutral character. The inspector had identified his statutory duty which he discharged. The present case was not within the sixth principle enunciated by Glidewell LJ in Bath Society v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] EGCS 14.
Steinberg v Secretary of State for the Environment [1989] PLR 9 considered.
John Laws and Ian Ashford-Thom (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the appellant, the Secretary of State for the Environment; and Nigel Macleod QC and Jonathan Karas (instructed by Sherwood & Co) appeared for the first respondents, South Lakeside District Council. The second respondents, Carlisle Diocesan Parsonages Board, did not appear and were not represented.
