Claimant local planning authority refusing planning permission for residential development – Developer appealing – Inspector allowing appeal – Whether inspector failing to properly apply development plan policies – Whether inspector’s reasoning inadequate – Application dismissed
Barratt Homes Ltd applied to Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council (the claimants) for planning permission for development on land at the edge of an established residential area. Scheme A was for 79 flats and was to have a central block five storeys in height. Scheme B was for 71 flats and was to have a central block four storeys in height. The claimants accepted that the site was appropriate for residential development but refused planning permission because “the proposal, by reason of its size… in particular its height… is considered to be a gross over-development of the site”. They also found that it was “prejudicial to the amenities of adjacent land uses and damaging to the character and amenities of the area”. Barratt appealed.
In his decision letter, the inspector set out the relevant development plan policies and identified a number of main issues, including the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area and the adequacy of the proposed provisions for public open space. He rejected the claimants’ argument that the site should be seen in the context of North Ascot, and considered that it should be seen in the context of the more open area of mixed land uses located to the south east of the site. He concluded that “a building of the height proposed would be appropriate in scale to the site and the open nature of the space that would be overlooked by the development”. The inspector then considered the public open space issue and concluded that there would be a shortfall. However, he went on to find that “the Local Plan specifically states that the shortfall can be made up by means of a pro rata financial contribution” and that such an approach was appropriate in the instant case. Consequently, he allowed Barratt’s appeal.
The claimants applied to quash the inspector’s decision pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on the grounds that: (i) the inspector failed to properly direct his mind to the question of whether the proposal would be incompatible with, or cause harm to, the open area of mixed land uses to the south east, as required by the development plan; (ii) the inspector failed to provide adequate reasons for his conclusion; (iii) the financial contribution of £50,000 which had been offered could not equate to the shortfall in such an expensive residential area; and (iv) thus, the inspector’s conclusion had been reached on the basis of no evidence.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The decision letter had to be interpreted in light of the fact that it was addressed to an informed reader. The inspector’s reasons for rejecting the claimants’ contentions were clear. Although it would have been more desirable for the inspector to have spelt out his specific conclusions regarding the harm or incompatibility with the mixed land uses of the area, it did not follow that his reasons were inadequate.
There was nothing inappropriate in the inspector’s conclusion that, as a matter of principle, the financial contribution was an appropriate way of dealing with the issue. As no alternative figure was calculated or suggested to the inspector at the inquiry, he was entitled to conclude as he did on the evidence.
Graham Stoker (instructed by the solicitor to Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council) appeared for the claimants; John Litton (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Stephen Morgan (instructed by Mills & Reeve, of Cambridge) appeared for the second defendant, Barratt Homes Ltd.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
