Developer St James Homes Ltd has gone to the High Court in a bid to overturn the Environment Secretarys decision to block its plans for a housing development in Feltham.
St James claims that the Secretary of States decision, following the recommendation of an inspector, was based upon an incorrect assessmen, of the boundary of green belt land, which the developer had had no opportunity to challenge.
The dispute started after St James applied for planning permission to build 276 homes on land to the west of Feltham Hill Primary School and a link road between Ashford Road and Bedfont Road.
The planning authority, Hounslow London Borough Council, failed to decide the application in time, and the issue was taken in by the Secretary of State for his determination.
At a public inquiry into the plan, the councils evidence was that the proposed development encroached upon the green belt by only 0.16ha, an amount they found was so small as to be unobjectionable.
However, the inspector and the Secretary of State proceeded upon the basis that there was a 0.94ha encroachment, after accepting evidence from St James competitor, Rutland Homes, which objected to the plan at the inquiry.
The inspector took the view that Rutlands evidence, which derived from an interpretation of the councils unitary development plan (UDP), took precedence over the councils own evidence and any other map of the area. He therefore refused permission for the development.
Challenging that finding, St James argued that the judge, Ouseley J, should quash the Secretary of States decision and send the matter back for reconsideration. It contended that the basis upon which the inspectors view was formed was not included in the statements of case issued before the inquiry, so that it had not had an opportunity to contest the matter.
David Holgate QC, counsel for St James, said: “The lengthy, technical and contentious debate conducted at the inquiry about traffic flows, contamination and the other points raised in the statements of case was, on this view, entirely wrong-headed, and the costs incurred in pursuing the application and preparing for the inquiry were wasted.”
“On this view, the claimant overcame all such difficulties (as it did) only to stumble on an issue not mentioned in the statements of case and inconsistent with the councils interpretation of its own UDP.”
However, Timothy Corner, counsel for the Secretary of State, argued that the Secretary of State and the inspector had been entitled to approach the UDP in the way they did. He said: “they were faced with a conflict between the various parts of the plan, which they had to resolve on the basis of the evidence before them.”
The hearing continues, and is expected to last for a day and a half.
St James Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
PLS News 15/12/00
