The Secretary called in a decision of the inspector to permit the building of a supermarket, and reversed the decision, holding that a need had been demonstrated, but that the inspector had been insufficiently flexible in applying the sequential test under PPG6, and he felt that the proposal was inconsistent with PPG13. On appeal, it was stated that the Secretary’s decision had been sufficiently detailed to demonstrate his reasoning, and he was entitled to conclude that the inspector should apply a broader test. He had accepted the need for the development, but with clear doubts. His attitude to the parking and travel issues might have been given in more detail, but the deficiency was not enough to vitiate the decision.
Gazette 11-Jan-2001, [2001] JPL 686
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Wandsworth London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions CA 19-Feb-2003
The applicant sought permission for a supermarket. It would fall mostly within the Lambeth area, but also in part in a neighbouring borough. One classified the development as a ‘neighbourhood centre’, but the appellant authority classified the shops . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.89777
