Claimant applying for planning permission to redevelop warehouse for residential use – Claimant appealing against council’s failure to determine application – Inspector finding reasonable prospect of reuse of land for employment and dismissing appeal – Whether inspector erred in approach towards loss of employment land – Application dismissed
Unicoin Homes (the claimant) applied to the second respondent, Tandridge District Council, for planning permission to redevelop a former warehouse for housing purposes. The council failed to determine the application within the required period and the claimant appealed.
In his decision letter, the first respondent’s inspector identified one of the key issues as the implication of the loss of the site as employment land. He found that while there were a limited range of employment uses for the site, it was “not so poorly located or constrained as to be unsuitable” and there was a reasonable prospect of suitable employment reuse. In relation to traffic impact, the inspector found that Class B1 uses would not have a significantly greater impact on the surrounding residential area than the former warehouse use and could potentially have less impact. He concluded that the merits of the development scheme were “substantially outweighed by the loss of employment land and the associated conflict with the development plan” and dismissed the claimant’s appeal.
The claimant sought to quash the inspector’s decision pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It was submitted that: (i) there was no evidence before the inspector as to the traffic generation of the former use against which he could make the comparison with other possible uses; (ii) he failed to give proper reasons for his conclusion; (iii) he failed to follow the correct approach of Westminster City Council v British Waterways Board [1984] 2 EGLR 159, namely, whether it had been shown, on a balance of probabilities, that if the residential use was refused, the land would effectively be put to an employment use; (iv) a finding of mere potential of future employment use was insufficient; and (v) even if the inspector asked the correct question, his conclusions were irrational and were not supported by the evidence before him.
Held: The application was dismissed.
There was evidence before the inspector, which, although not statistical, demonstrated the effect of traffic generation. He was entitled to exercise his planning judgment in the way he did when addressing that consideration. On a fair reading of the decision letter, the inspector had properly applied the Westminster City Council test. The weighing up of the advantages and disadvantages of the site were for the inspector’s judgment. The inspector made it clear what he had taken into account in reaching his conclusions and why he had reached them.
Anthony Dinkin QC (instructed by Penningtons) appeared for the claimant; David Forsdick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister