Planning permission — Refusal — Applicant seeking permission for conversion of farmbuildings to residential use — Draft local plan stressing need for local housing — Applicant refusing to accept condition — Status of draft local plan altered — Changed status not drawn to inspector’s notice — Whether breach of natural justice — Whether applicant prejudiced — Application refused
The applicant, T, challenged the refusal by the Secretary of State for the Environment through his inspector to allow planning permission for the partial demolition and conversion of farmbuildings and use of the site for residential development on land adjoining Bassenthwaite Hall Farm, Bassenthwaite, Cumbria. The inspector had stated in his decision letter of June 17 1991 that “the central issue in this case is whether the proposal would materially undermine the main objective of protecting the landscape of the National Park” which underlay the restrictive housing policies in the area. However, the inspector then went on to consider Policy H9 of the Cumbria and Lake District joint structure plan, which made it clear that, normally, new housing would be allowed only if it catered for local needs. T was not prepared to accept the imposition of that condition. He contended that the inspector’s refusal was vitiated on the ground, inter alia, that the status of the draft local plan had been altered but that fact had not been made known to the inspector. On June 7 1990, the Lake District special planning board had prepared a draft Lake District local plan as a basis for public consultation which, in particular, set out new policies for the provision of low-cost housing for local people. However, in a report to the board, it was made clear that the local plan would not be proceeded with to formal adoption but would be modified to conform to the “emerging” structure plan. Therefore, in a decision on June 3 1991, ie two weeks before the inspector’s decision letter, the planning policy committee of the board agreed “not to place the draft local plan on deposit but instead to proceed with the publication of interim policy statements…”. That decision had followed the Government’s announcement of Circular 7/91 — Planning and Affordable Housing. Once the committee had decided to publish interim policy statements and not to place the local plan on deposit, T argued, that fact should have been communicated to the Secretary of State and his inspector.
Held The application was refused.
1. In Marshall v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] 3 PLR 84, in dealing with an alleged failure by the local planning authority to comply with the regulations governing the appeals procedure by written representation, the court held that a two-stage investigatory approach should be adopted: namely (a) to establish whether there had been a breach of regulations and (b) if so, whether the interests of the applicant had been substantially prejudiced as a result.
2. Once the plan had been abandoned the change in circumstances should have been brought to the Secretary of State’s attention. If the status of a plan changed, that status should then be made known. While there had been no formal breach of the regulations as in Marshall, there was none the less an implicit duty upon the board to put forward, and to draw to the Secretary of State’s attention, the change of status of the plan.
3. As a result of the failure to inform the Secretary of State at or after June 2 that the plan in draft effectively had been abandoned, a breach of natural justice had occurred.
4. However, the next stage to be considered was the effect of that breach of natural justice. With regard to whether there had been prejudice to T as a result of the failure to inform the Secretary of State, it was perfectly clear that there had been no such prejudice. There was no trace that excessive weight had been placed by the inspector on local plans in the light of his statement that the “central issue” concerned the protection of the landscape of the National Park.
Eric Owen (instructed by Oglethorpe & Broatch, of Keswick) appeared for the applicant, Mr Trafford; Paul Bridge (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; and Richard Drabble (instructed by Winckworth & Pemberton) appeared for the local planning authority.
