Town and country planning - defendant local authority granting planning permission for development of hospital in green belt - claimant owning neighbouring land - claimant's land also being considered for development of new hospital - claimant challenging grant of planning permission on basis that inspector's report inadequate - claim dismissed

R (on the application of Kilmartin Properties (TW) Ltd) v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council: QBD: Administrative Court: Mr Justice Harrison: 18 December 2003

The claimant's land had been considered for the site of a new district general hospital.

Planning permission had been sought and the decision of the secretary of state was awaited.

In the interim, the defendant local planning authority granted planning permission to the interested party to construct a new hospital on a green belt site, which already contained a number of low-rise hospital buildings.

The permitted redevelopment would include structures twice the height of the existing buildings.

The claimant applied for judicial review to quash the grant of planning permission on the grounds that, among other things, the defendant's planning officer had erred in advising the planning committee that the proposed development complied with the height criterion in paragraph C4 of annex C to PPG 2, the officer had failed to give sufficient consideration to the claimant's alternative site, and environmental concerns had not been adequately considered.

Keith Lindblom QC and Nathalie Lieven (instructed by Dechert) for the claimant; Richard Drabble QC and David Forsdick (instructed by the solicitor, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council) for the defendant.

Held: The claim was dismissed.

Although the new buildings would be significantly taller than the existing structures, they would be constructed on a lower ground level than the existing buildings and the overall effect of the buildings on the openness of the green belt would not be increased.

The officer's report should have said that although the proposed development did not comply with the height requirement of annex C, the location of the new buildings amounted to very special circumstances that justified the breach.

The fact that the officer's report was not couched in those terms did not affect the planning committee's decision.

The committee had made a reasoned decision not to consider alternative sites nor to embark on a comparative assessment of sites.

That was a matter of planning judgment and was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

The environmental statement sufficiently identified potential environmental hazards and it was clear that those hazards could be mitigated by way of the imposition of conditions.