Development — Conformity with local plan — Piecemeal development taking place on appeal site — Overall development overtaken by events — Whether inspector needing to spell out departure from plan in express terms — Appeal by local planning authority dismissed
The appeal concerned the redevelopment of land at the Greyhound Public House, 22-24 London Road, Staines, and the application was for a petrol-filling station, car wash and related access. The council refused planning permission on the grounds, inter alia, of highway objections and safety grounds. They also objected to the piecemeal development of the site. The inspector allowed the appeal and granted outline planning permission, subject to conditions, having found that the councils’ objections were not so compelling that permission ought to be refused.
He stated that the statutory development plan for the purposes of section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 consisted of the approved Surrey structure plan and the adopted Spelthorne Borough local plan. It contained a specific proposal for the comprehensive redevelopment of the appeal site and although it stressed the need for a comprehensive approach, it did not stipulate that all development had to take place at one time. He also found that the land use requirements of the original brief had been largely overtaken by events. The original brief had not included a petrol-filling station, but there was no overriding land use objection to such a facility being provided on the appeal site. The planning authority appealed. Section 54A provides that where “regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. It was accepted that the decision-maker should make it clear whether he was treating the proposal as being in accordance with the development plan: see St Albans District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 1 PLR 88.
2. That principle had existed even before section 54A came into force, but had since undoubtedly acquired additional importance. However, it did not mean that it had to be spelled out in express terms.
3. Sometimes it might be very clear that there was a departure and that the decision letter treated the proposal as such throughout. That might be implicit in the structure and contents of the decision. However, where it was not obvious, the need for a clear finding in express terms became much greater.
4. In the present case, it must have been evident to all the parties that the appeal scheme did not comply with the local plan requirement for a comprehensive redevelopment. The inspector found that such a scheme was neither realistic nor necessary as the proposal had been largely overtaken by events — a phrase used in PPG 1, para 27, as an instance of a material consideration which might indicate why the decision should not be in accordance with the development plan. There was no lack of clarity in the approach nor any departure of what was required under section 54A. It would be most regrettable were planning inspectors required to recite the precise words of the statutory provision in order to comply with it as if it were some magic formula or incantation and the law did not require them to do so.
Mary Mcpherson (instructed by the solicitor to Spelthorne Borough Council) appeared for the council; David Holgate (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; John Dagg (instructed by Hewitson Becke & Shaw, of Northampton) appeared for the developers, Lawlor Land plc.
