The council appealed against the inspector’s decision to grant permission to a construction company to build houses on land. The land had formerly been used as a school playing field and was now surplus to requirements. The Council wished to put the land to recreational uses. They said the inspector had failed to ask whether the existing informal land use would continue if the permission had been refused, and also to give reasons for his implicit conclusion that one planning use was more beneficial than the other.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The inspector should not have felt bound by the competing use test formulated in British Waterways. His task was to whether the relevant objections outweighed the presumption if one did arise, together with any other material consicerations. The inspector had not dealt with the existing use and potential use as public open land. A planning decision can be quashed if the inspector fails properly to assess the actual use of land. ‘The planning system fails in its function whenever it prevents, inhibits or delays development which can reasonably be permitted. There is always a presumption in favour of allowing applications for development, having regard to all material considerations, unless that development would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance . .’
Although the inspector’s duty was to decide whether the application should be granted or refused on the basis of the evidence before him, he had failed to complete his task because it was crucial for those who were dealing with the site in question to know whether there would continue to be formal or informal free access by members of the public to the site. Thus there was, as well as the primary task which the inspector had to perform a secondary task which he was not only expected to perform but which was a crucial feature of the decision which he had to make.
Judges:
Ralph Gibson LJ, Evans LJ, Sir John Megaw
Citations:
Times 05-Jan-1994, [1993] NPC 167, [1994] 68 P and CR 116
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina (Westminster City Council) v British Waterways Board HL 1985
The tenant occupied land next to a canal under a lease from the Defendants. The landlord opposed a renewal saying they wished to occupy the land themselves for the purposes of a marina. The tenant said the plan was unrealistic, because it would not . .
Cited – Federated Estates Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment and Gillingham Borough Council 1983
‘There was no obligation on an inspector to undertake an investigatory role, though he had certain powers to call for information if he considered it necessary. He should arrive at his conclusions on the basis of what the parties (including third . .
Followed – London Residuary Body v Lambeth London Borough Council HL 1990
Planning battles had raged over the use of the former GLC County Hall. The question was whether it was desirable and appropriate to retain use of part of the building for London Government offices and centred on the ‘competing needs’ test.
Cited – Clyde and Co v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1977
Planning permission had been granted for an office block, together with 8 flats as part of the same building. The building was largely erected, with the residential part incomplete. There was an application to change the existing permitted use of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bannertown Developments Limited v Secretary of State for Environment Cotswold District Council Kimberley Securities Plc CA 6-Oct-1998
. .
Cited – Fuller v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 14-Jan-2015
The claimant challenged grant of a planning permission to erect a two story dwelling, saying that a tree would be lost.
Held: The policy does not only provide a condition under which only development will be permitted: it also requires that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.79112