“Incorrect decision of the Planning Inspectorate ref APP/C1570/A/11/2164898/NWF decision [sic] to allow outline planning permission on land south of Ongar Road, Gt Dunmow, Essex CM6 1EX. The planning inspector mislead himself on the definition he applied to sustainability and [was] wrong to identify a sufficient benefit in housing to compensate for the harm of building on the countryside, and outside development limits.”
“That the benefits arising from the proposed development do not outweigh the harm that would be caused by its conflict with local planning policies for the protection of the countryside. That due consideration was not given to the NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework] and Localism and the fact that a Planning Inspector (J Head) had rejected a similar planning application in the Great Dunmow area, ref APP/C1570/A/11/2146338.”
“From the outset the claimants had sought an order quashing the Inspector’s decision to grant planning permission”
“Amendments in general ought to be allowed so that the real dispute between the parties can be adjudicated upon provided that any prejudice to the other party caused by the amendment can be compensated for in costs, and the public interest in the administration of justice is not significantly harmed.”
“1. The site lies outside the development limit where in accordance with Uttlesford Local Plan Policy S7 the countryside is to be protected for its own sake, the countryside will be protected from development unless it needs to be there or is appropriate to a rural area. The proposal would involve the erection of market housing which is not an appropriate form of development in the countryside, does not need to be there and would not protect the character of the countryside. The level of development proposed would be harmful to the character of the area. It therefore fails to comply with Policy S7 of the Uttlesford Local Plan.”
“The circumstances of this reconvened Hearing are unusual. We consider it most important that the parameters for the new Hearing are clearly understood by all parties. The intention is to clearly establish the rules to be followed at the reconvened Hearing so that the procedure remains fair to all. The second paragraph of your letter [the letter of4 May 2012 from the Planning Inspectorate] states that the intention is “to enable any interested parties to be able to listen to all the evidence and to be given the opportunity to comment at the Hearing”
“it would not be in the interest of openness, fairness, and impartiality if the appeal decision in this case was based on proceedings which took place without the public being present. Therefore, in principle, it will be necessary to re-run the Hearing in the same form as the event which took place on 11 and 12 April, and the same agenda will apply. However, the procedure to be adopted will be dependent on the nature and extent of public attendance, and the Inspector will discuss the details with all those present at the start of the resumed event. In common with normal procedure, the main parties should rely on the case provided in their statements, and the Inspector will not expect new material to be put forward.”
“Whether the site is an appropriate location for housing development, having regard to the policy of restraint outside the settlement area, and to the following specific points: 1) the effect on the character and appearance of the countryside, 2) whether the proposal represents a sustainable form of development in respect of accessibility to local facilities and public transport, 3) the effect on road safety and the free flow of traffic, and 4) whether any harm is outweighed by the need for housing in the area”
“In the event he went through the agenda, described each issue, and described the case made by each side seeking confirmation from both sides that his description of the facts of the matter was correct. He did not allow the arguments to be played out in full. Residents were not given the opportunity, for example, to query housing numbers about which there had been very considerable discussion at the first hearing.”
“The Inspector will open the hearing by explaining what the appeal is about. He or she will then go through some routine points, including asking who wants to speak. The Inspector will usually give a summary of the appellant’s and the LPA’s cases, and say which topics will be discussed at the hearing. The Inspector leads the discussion. Hearings give everyone concerned the chance to give their views. Although hearings are informal, they must be orderly so that everyone involved can have a fair hearing.”
“Since they were not present throughout, the objectors have no way of knowing everything that was said, and thus what else may have been taken into account. They are left with a sense of grievance and unfairness which taints the whole procedure.”
“Where a local planning authority or the Secretary of State has to decide under these Regulations whether Schedule 2 development is EIA development the authority or Secretary of State shall take into account in making that decision such of the selection criteria set out in Schedule 3 as are relevant to the development.”
“In the light of these, the Secretary of State’s view is that, in general, EIA will be needed for Schedule 2 developments in three main types of case: (a) for major developments which are of more than local importance; (b) for developments which are proposed for particularly environmentally sensitive or vulnerable locations; and (c) for developments with unusually complex and potentially hazardous environmental effects.” (b) for developments which are proposed for particularly environmentally sensitive or vulnerable locations; and (c) for developments with unusually complex and potentially hazardous environmental effects.”
“The number of cases of such development will be a very small proportion of the total number of Schedule 2 developments.”