Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 136 (Jan)
Court: Administrative Court
Judge:

Sullivan J

Representation Hugh Richards (instructed by Wall, James & Davies) for the claimant.
  Philip Coppel (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor ) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 22 January 2002

Catchwords

Town and county planning - Permission for development - Refusal - Appeal - Claimants applying for permission to develop on site of former railway station - Local planning authority refusing permission on basis that land blending into landscape - Claimants' appeal dismissed by Secretary of State's planning inspector - Claimant arguing that inspector misinterpreting national planning guidance - Whether inspector in error.

The Case

It was understandable why there was an exclusion on the reuse of sites under PPG3, where the remains of a previous development had blended into the landscape over the process of time. Once that had happened, there was no sense in requiring further reasons why the site ought not to be reused. Moreover, it was difficult to see why such a site should be regarded differently from a green field site for practical planning purposes. Furthermore, if there were clear reasons that outweighed the use of the land, it was difficult to see why that in itself would not suffice to exclude the land from development.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.