GREEN BELT : INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT : PLANNING CONTROL : PLANNING PERMISSION : REASONS : IMPACT ON GREEN BELT LAND OF CONVERSION OF BUILDINGS
A planning inspector had given proper reasons for concluding that the conversion of certain buildings in green belt land would have a material impact on the land and that it was inappropriate. He had properly considered the Planning Policy Guidance 2 relating to the green belt, and whether any objections to the proposed development could be overcome by imposing conditions.
The applicant developer (C) applied to quash a decision of a planning inspector appointed by the respondent secretary of state to uphold a refusal of a local authority to grant planning permission for conversion of garage buildings into two apartments on green belt land. The garages were situated near a Grade II listed building. C’s proposal included the use of French doors which allowed access to overgrown land outside. C suggested that the use of the overgrown land could be restricted by a condition, but the inspector found that it was unreasonable to restrict the use, since it would not be feasible to prevent future occupiers from making use of space immediately outside their doors. The inspector held that the proposal would increase domestic activities, would give rise to additional car parking, and would have a materially greater impact on the green belt than the original use would do. The inspector, having regard to the Planning Policy Guidance 2 relating to green belt land, found that the proposed development was inappropriate. C submitted that the inspector had failed to give proper and adequate reasons for his decision, and had had failed properly to apply PPG 2 para.3.9 and to consider whether any objections to the proposal could be overcome by conditions. `
HELD: The inspector only needed to address the principal controversial issues, and not every issue raised. The inspector had expressly considered a suggested condition to restrict use of the land outside the French doors and had properly applied PPG2 para.3.9. He had properly considered the issue relating to additional car parking, and the impact of C’s proposal on the green belt land. He had provided clear and intelligible reasons for his conclusions, South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter (No2) (2004) UKHL 33, (2004) 1 WLR 1953 followed. There was no error of law in the inspector’s decision.
Application refused
CITY & COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL LTD v (1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES & LOCAL GOVERNMENT (2) EAST HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL (2009)
QBD (Admin) (Ian Dove QC) 4/6/2009
Lawtel: 08.06.09
