Planning permission — Consistency in planning decisions — Application for building block of flats — Permission refused on certain grounds — No indication of refusal in principle — Fresh application made to meet objections — Permission refused on visual grounds — Whether second inspector’s refusal justifiable — Whether first planning refusal a material consideration — Guidelines on taking previous inspector’s decision into account — Application refused
In May 1990, an application was refused for the development of a three-storey block of 11 flats with 17 car park spaces in the rear garden of the appeal site at 10 Chipstead Road, Banstead, Surrey, followed by an unsuccessful appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The appeal was by written representations. The applicants then made the present application for a reduced form of flat development. The second application was recommended for approval by the officers of the local planning authority on the grounds that the first inspector’s objections had been met. However, it was refused by the council and the refusal was upheld on appeal after public inquiry.
The first inspector had rejected the proposal on grounds relating to the particular proposal rather than objecting to flat development in principle. The applicants raised the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the inspector in the second appeal had proper regard to the decision of the first inspector as a material consideration; and (2) whether the gave adequate reasons for disagreeing with it. They submitted, inter alia, that consistency in planning decisions was important; that previous decisions were a material consideration which must be taken into account: see North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] JPL 995; and that consistency was relevant to costs: see Circular 2/87, para 11.
Held The application was refused.
1. Relevant previous decisions were a material consideration. In North Wiltshire the second inspector had not referred at all to the previous decision although it had been placed before him.
2. An inspector must exercise his own judgment and was therefore free to disagree with his predecessor: see Rockhold v Secretary of State for the Environment [1986] JPL 130.
3. In dealing with a relevant previous decision the inspector must deal with it adequately and give reasons for any material disagreement with his predecessor: see Barnet London Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] JPL 540.
4. Where something was a matter of judgment and opinion (eg aesthetics) it might not always be possible for the decision maker to give reasons for his different view. In such a case, he might only be able to say “I disagree”: see R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Gosport [1992] JPL 476.
5. In the first appeal, the inspector dismissed the proposal because it was considered over-dominant in relation to the adjoining property, but raised no objection to the visual aspect of the car parking. The principle of flat development appeared to have been approved and he pointed out that the surrounding area had a mixture of buildings including small blocks. In the second appeal, the inspector drew attention to the visual effect of the garden car park and its impact on the character of the neighbourhood, which he looked at by reference to the immediate area and not to the larger surrounding area referred to by the first inspector.
6. In so doing, he gave ample attention to the previous decision, but rejected the appeal on a ground which the first inspector did not expressly deal with. It might be that by inference the first inspector might have thought there was no objection to the visual effect of the car park in the rear garden and it might be that he was looking at the wider area but the present inspector was entitled to disagree.
7. Further, as the first inspector had given no reasons for not regarding the visual aspect of the car parking as an objection to the development, there was no cause for the second inspector to give reasons for his disagreement on that particular point.
8. The effect of the second refusal might be to rule out altogether or to make flat development on the site very difficult so that the applicants deserved sympathy for the manner in which their legitimate hopes had been dashed. But there was no legal invalidity or defect in the second decision which had been given after a local inquiry when the matter was more fully examined with the participation of local residents.
Nicholas Nardecchia (instructed by Burt Brill & Cardens, of Brighton) appeared for the applicants; Rabinder Singh (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Michael Druce (instructed by the solicitor to Reigate and Banstead District Council) appeared for the local planning authority.
