Council wins statutory review challenge over finding by planning inspector that entire site was previously developed land

Karen Ridge, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, found the inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government was wrong to find that an entire green belt site was previously developed land, rather than just parts of it having this status.

Applicant Majid Hussain sought to build a house at Mellor, near Blackburn.

Ribble Valley refused permission for reasons that included its location outside a defined settlement, green belt harm and harm to the character and appearance of the local area.

Mr Hussain then successfully appealed to the inspector and Ribble Valley in turn brought a claim for statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 concerning the inspector’s treatment of green belt policy.

Ms Ridge noted the site comprises several horse paddocks with agricultural buildings/stabling in two corners. The proposed home would be adjacent to Woodfold Park Farm.

She said the main question that arose was whether the site constituted inappropriate development within the green belt or whether it fell within one of the exceptions in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Ms Ridge said the claim was brought on a single ground with four sub-grounds: the inspector failed to apply the correct approach under Broxbourne and therefore unlawfully concluded that the entire site was previously developed; the inspector failed to provide adequate reasons; took into account an irrelevant consideration; and  reached an irrational conclusion that the whole site was previously developed land.

Turning to the issue of irrationality, Ms Ridge said: “It is difficult to know on what basis the inspector reached his conclusion.”

She said the site lacked a uniform spread of development and “given the paddocks form by far the largest part of the site, it was unreasonable to ignore large areas of a site of this nature and for this reason I am satisfied that the conclusion that the entire site was previously developed land was irrational.”

She said failure to apply the Broxbourne test despite the piecemeal spread of development, and the concentration of equestrian development at one end, “called for some analysis as to the relative proportions of previously developed land” and meant the inspector’s “analysis of [this] was therefore flawed”.

Ms Ridge found a single sentence in the decision letter was “insufficient to demonstrate the sort of analysis required or the basis on which the inspector applied the definition of previously developed land to the site.

“This leaves some doubt as to whether the correct policy definition was applied. The reasoning is cursory and does not enable the claimant to understand the basis on which the inspector determined that the whole site fell within the definition of previously developed land.”

The deputy High Court judge found the inspector took account of an irrelevant consideration related to the site’s equestrian use.

Ms Ridge said the outcome would not necessarily have been the same had the inspector’s error not occurred, and quashed his decision.

Mark Smulian