Residential development — Unitary development plan — Claimant providing further education from a number of sites — Planning permission sought for use of site for residential development — Adjacent football club making alternative proposal for use of site as social club — Strong likelihood of club acquiring site — Inspector refusing application
The claimant was a body corporate under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, providing further education from its main campus, two annexes and a number of outreach centres. It wished to develop the site of one of the annexes for housing in order to use the sale proceeds to enhance other college facilities. It therefore applied to the second defendant planning authority for outline permission for residential use. Planning officers recommended approval of the application, but it was refused by the planning committee on the ground that the proposed development would result in the loss of a potential community or recreational use. This was a reference, inter alia, to the potential loss of the adjacent football club, which had obtained planning permission for development of the appeal site for sport and leisure use and associated car parking.
The claimant appealed to the Secretary of State, whose planning inspector recommended refusal of the application. She found that: (i) the appeal site was the only place into which the football club could expand while remaining on its existing site; (ii) the social club attached to the ground was vital to the provision of community, social and recreational facilities in the area; (iii) redevelopment of the site would mean that no part of it would be available for use by the club; and (iv) because the club had already obtained planning permission, there was a very strong likelihood that it would be in a position to use the site. The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash that decision on the basis that the inspector had been wrong to find that there was a strong likelihood that the club would acquire the site. The claimant had not accepted the club’s offer, and if its own planning application were unsuccessful, it would have to review its plans for the site. Both points had been raised before the inspector, and her failure to deal with them constituted a failure to deal with a material consideration. The decision was consequently flawed.
Held: The claim was allowed.
The inspector had failed to deal with a material consideration. The likelihood of the club being able to acquire the appeal site, whether the club’s offer would be accepted and, if not, what the claimant would choose to do with the site, were all clearly material considerations in deciding whether the club would be able to develop the site. The inspector had not expressly dealt with any of those points, and the claimant was entitled to know how the inspector had reached her conclusions.
Peter Wadsley (instructed by Eversheds, of Cardiff) appeared for the claimant; Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants, Stoud District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
