Town and country planning: residential development

Claimant seeking to develop site for housing - local planning authority failing to determine application - claimant appealing - inspector treating site as greenfield site - inspector applying sequential test in PPG 3 and refusing appeal - claimant seeking to quash decision - whether inspector erred in law - whether site should have been treated as previously developed land - claim dismissedJoinglobal Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and another: Queen's Bench Division: Administrative Court: Mr Justice Sullivan: 3 October 2001The claimant made an outline application to the second defendant local planning authority for residential development of a 1.14 acre site in Ulceby.

A previous outline permission for the site had expired prior to the claimant's application.

The second defendant failed to determine the application within the requisite period and the claimant appealed to the first defendant secretary of state.

In his decision letter, the inspector identified the main issue to be the acceptability of the proposal in terms of local, regional and national policy for the provision of housing land.

After considering the guidance in Planning Policy Guidance 3 (PPG 3) and the sequential test for identifying sites for housing, the inspector stated that the local plan was in accordance with the strategy of PPG 3 to concentrate development in urban areas.

The inspector found that: l The site had not previously been built on and should be treated as a greenfield site; and, l Although planning permission had previously been granted in respect of the site, subsequent policy decisions meant that it was inappropriate to allow the development.

The inspector refused the claimant's appeal.

The claimant sought to quash the inspector's decision pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The claimant's main criticism was that the inspector, having decided that the site should have been treated as an urban site, should have also treated the site as previously developed land.

As a result of that error, it was contended that the inspector failed to go on to properly apply the sequential test in PPG 3.Held: The claim was dismissed.The inspector referred to PPG 3 and it was plain from his decision that he was not indicating that the site should be treated as an urban site.

The inspector's point was that the site lay within a village but even in villages one ought to look first at the reuse of previously developed land before the use of greenfield sites for development.

He correctly found that the site did not fall within the definition of previously developed land in PPG 3.

There was no justification to treat the site as being in some way analogous to previously developed land.Joseph Harper QC (instructed by Shoosmiths, of Northampton) for the claimant; Timothy Corner (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the first defendant; the second defendant did not appear and were not represented.