Development – Green belt – Planning policy – Interested party appealing against refusal of planning permission for use of green-belt land for waste transfer and recycling – Planning inspector appointed by defendant granting conditional permission – Claimant council seeking to quash grant of permission – Whether inspector failing to consider material planning policy – Application dismissed
In 2004, the interested party applied for planning permission to use a green-belt site, which had a lengthy and complex planning history, for waste-transfer and recycling activities. The claimant council refused the application on the ground, inter alia, that the proposed development constituted inappropriate development that would harm the metropolitan green belt.
The interested party appealed the refusal of planning permission under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The defendant’s inspector held an inquiry, identifying as one of the main issues whether the proposal amounted to inappropriate development in the green belt and, if so, whether any special circumstances could overcome the presumption against such development.
Following the inquiry and a site visit, the inspector issued granted conditional planning permission. The claimant applied, under section 288 of the 1990 Act, to quash that decision contending, inter alia, that the inspector had erred in law in failing to take account of PPG 2, which constituted a material planning consideration in green-belt cases. In particular, para 3.2 stated that very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development would not arise unless other considerations clearly outweighed the harm.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The proposition that the inspector did not have para 3.2 of PPG 2 in mind in considering the application was untenable. PPG 2 was probably the most well known, at least in planning circles, of all the government’s planning guidance policies. It had been the subject numerous planning inquiries and court decisions. Moreover, para 3.2 of PPG 2 could not have been overlooked by an experienced planning inspector, who was obliged to consider its terms, as did the inspector, in the instant case: R (on the application of Wychavon District Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 692 considered.
The inspector had clearly set out the issues that para 3.2 raised and used the language from that paragraph, even though he had not specifically mentioned it in his decision letter.
In those circumstances, it could not be said that the inspector had erred in law in failing to take account of a material consideration. Moreover, it was impossible to conclude that the inspector’s decision was perverse. It might be that another inspector faced with the same considerations would have taken a different view, but it was a matter for the planning judgment and discretion of the inspector in the particular case.
Richard Wald (instructed by the legal department of Surrey County Council) appeared for the claimants; Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant; Simon Pickles (instructed by Manches LLP) appeared for the interested party.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
