Outline permission granted — Planning permission refused for detailed scheme — Whether section 54A of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 applying to approval of reserved matters — Whether principles of development being redetermined — Appeal by developers dismissed
Outline planning permission had been granted on appeal for a proposed residential development on land at Kew Gardens. The detailed schemes provided for 268 and 266 flats in seven blocks. The appeals related to a condition requiring the submission of full details of siting, design and external appearance of the buildings as well as landscaping of the site. The main issue was whether the proposals would cause serious harm to the acknowledged quality of the riverside and its setting. In dealing with the detailed scheme the inspector, concluded on balance, that the benefits would be outweighed by the serious harm to the acknowledged quality of the riverside and its setting. In the light of planning policies that was a justifiable reason for dismissing the appeals.
The developers appealed on two main grounds, viz that the inspector was in error in deciding that although the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 did not contain explicit reference on the applicability of section 54A to the consideration of applications for the approval of reserved matters, that consideration was an extension of the original outline planning permission. It would be inconsistent to apply the development plan to only the first part of a two-stage process. The developers argued that the inspector should have proceeded on the basis that section 54A did not apply to applications for approval of reserved matters. The second ground of appeal was that the inspector redetermined the principles of development, which had been determined by the outline planning permission.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. There was no doubt that the Act required that section 54A should apply to an appeal against refusal of approval of reserved matters.
2. The appeal was under section 78 in circumstances where application to the local planning authority was made for approval of a condition imposed on the planning permission grant.
3. Section 70 had to be applied to that appeal as it applied in relation to an application for planning permission.
4. Section 70 required that in such an application regard had to be paid to the provisions of the development plan. Section 54A, in turn, required that where a determination was to be made under the planning Acts, regard had to be paid to the development plan and that the determination was to be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations determined otherwise.
5. Further, with regard to the second ground of appeal, the inspector was mindful that the principle of development had been established and that he properly restricted himself to reserved matters so that there was not a redetermination of the principles of development which had been determined by the outline planning permission.
6. It was important to note that the first inspector had merely illustrative plans to consider, while the second was dealing with a specific scheme. If he felt that was harmful in any way, he had to say so when faced with a detailed scheme.
Gregory Stone QC (instructed by Stepien Lake Gilbert & Paling) appeared for the developers; Rhodri Price Lewis (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; John Furber (instructed by the solicitor to Richmond on Thames London Borough Council) appeared for the local planning authority.
