Town and country planning: Green belt ; ;Local planning authority refusing claimant planning permission to build boathouse inspector finding proposal causing harm to green belt and dismissing claimant's appeal whether inspector failing to take material considerations into account whether taking account of immaterial considerations application dismissed ;Wainsfort Corporation v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and another Queen's Bench Division: Administrative Court: Hallett J ;23 November 2000 ;The second defendant local planning authority refused to grant Wainsfort Corporation (the claimant) planning permission for the erection of a boathouse on land in the green belt.

The claimant appealed.

The inspector considered structure and local plan policies and PPG2.

He stated that the main issue was whether the proposal conflicted with policy to protect the green belt and, if so, whether there were any very special circumstances to justify the development.

The inspector rejected the planning authority's contention that the site was a semi-rural site and found that it was suburban in character, therefore, policy GB2 in the local plan had no application.

He considered, but distinguished, an earlier appeal decision relating to a nearby site, in which an inspector had found that the proposal to build a replacement boathouse was essential for outdoor use and recreation.

The inspector found that although provision of a boathouse on the site was desirable, it was not essential " in terms of PPG2.

Further, it was not essential for the boathouse to be located where the owner lived.

Overall, he concluded that the proposal would cause harm to the openness of the green belt and was inappropriate development.

;The claimant sought to quash the inspectors decision pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the grounds that: (i) the inspector had erred in his interpretation of the word essential in PPG2; (ii) the inspectors reasons were inconsistent and unintelligible; and (iii) the inspector had erred in disregarding the relevant earlier planning decision.

It was submitted that a consistency of approach was important and desirable.

;Held: The application was dismissed.

;1.

Even if the previous decision was sufficiently closely related for the inspector to be bound to have regard to it, he was not bound by it.

It was open to him to distinguish it.

The inspector did take the earlier decision into account and concluded that the facts of that case were very different.

He made it perfectly plain why he dismissed that part of the appeal.

;2.

Essential imposed a high standard.

The inspector properly considered all aspects of that matter and was entitled to find, on the material before him, that the claimant had met a lower standard than essential.

;3.

The inspector was entitled to reject the claimants contentions that the site was rural and that policy GB2 applied.

However, he was still obliged to consider the question of the openness of the green belt.

That was a general principle, to be applied over and above such matters.

His decision was not inconsistent, unintelligible or irrational.

;Christopher Cochrane QC (instructed by Rees & Freres) appeared for the claimant; Meyric Lewis (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second ;defendant, Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council, did not appear and was not represented.