Development within a conservation area lying across two borough councils’ boundaries — Borough councils classifying area differently — Whether a neighbourhood centre could also be a town centre for planning purposes — Claim dismissed
In 1999, planning permission was granted to the interested party (A) to develop a supermarket within an existing shopping area. The site was located within a conservation area close to the claimant council’s boundary. The relevant local borough council and the claimants described the site in different terms. According to the local borough council’s UDP, it was a “neighbourhood centre”, as described in guidance documents PPG 6, RPG 3 and the “Caborn” statement, and it was thus a preferred location for the opening of a supermarket. The claimants identified the shopping area as an “important local parade” under their UDP, and stated that it was not a preferred site.
The Secretary of State called in the application and an inquiry was held. The inspector recommended that planning permission be refused. He held that the classification of the area as a town centre was incorrect, and that, although there were no other preferable sites and the proposal would result in some benefits to the area, overall it was detrimental to conservation issues.
Despite this finding, the Secretary of State granted planning permission. He held that for the purposes of interpreting PPG 6, the shopping area did constitute a town centre, that the location of a food store would assist the area’s regeneration and that the development would enhance the conservation area. He noted that no substantive objections had been raised either by English Heritage or the borough council’s conservation officer.
The claimants sought to have this decision quashed under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on the basis that: (i) the Secretary of State had been wrong to conclude that the application site was in a town centre for the purposes of PPG 6; (ii) if it was within such a centre then the issue of retail need should have been considered, or alternatively, in considering such need, the Secretary of State had taken into account irrelevant considerations; and (iii) the Secretary of State had given inadequate reasons for rejecting his inspector’s conclusions on the impact of the proposals on the conservation area.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The guidance documents demonstrated that policies concerning development in London should be considered with care, as centres in London could perform different functions. A neighbourhood centre could, therefore, also be an existing town centre for the purposes of development. The Secretary of State had been justified in concluding that the two halves of the conservation area fell into the same category and, having so concluded, he had been justified in interpreting his own policy so as to find that the question of demonstrating retail need did not arise. The Secretary of State was under no duty to explain in detail his reasons for disagreeing with his inspector. He had not taken into account irrelevant considerations, and had also been entitled to disagree with his inspector over the matter of conservation. He had taken into account the specialist advice of English Heritage and the conservation officer from the local planning authority when making his decision. His reasoning was clear and adequately detailed.
Stephen Morgan (instructed by the solicitor to Wandsworth London Borough Council) appeared for the claimants; Paul Brown (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Patrick Clarkson QC and Scott Lyness (instructed by Berwin Leighton Paisner) appeared for the interested party.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
