Carroll v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2016] EWHC 2462 (Admin) (12 October 2016)
The High Court in Carroll v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2016] EWHC 2462 (Admin) (12 October 2016) has confirmed that alternative potential future uses for a development site is capable of being a material consideration within the meaning of section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Ultimately, whether or not it is a material consideration, and the weight to be given in the decision maker's balancing exercise, will depend upon the individual circumstances of the case.
The case involved an appeal against an inspector's decision to approve a planning application for a change of use of premises from Class B8 use (storage) to Class C3 use (dwellinghouse). The premises had previously been used for some time as Class B1 (offices). Substantial evidence has been presented at the inquiry as to the possibility of reversion to Class B1 use on commercial grounds (including the expert opinion of a registered valuer).
The local planning authorities' plan included a policy 'to ensure that there is a range of business uses…to allow businesses to grow and thrive' which afforded protection to Class B uses.
The Court concluded that:
"When considering the weight to be accorded to the material consideration of potential reversion to Class B1 use, it was relevant for the inspector to consider, from an objective standpoint, what the likely future actions of the owner of the property would be (whether the owner was the [current owner] or another owner in the future). The inspector erred in disregarding this consideration, and apparently on the grounds that 'it is not appropriate subjectively to interpret her past conduct or anticipate her future actions regarding the appeal property."
The Court concluded that, on the facts of the case, the inspector was required "to make an objective assessment of the likelihood of reversion to Class B1 use when deciding the question of weight". The inspector did not carry out this objective assessment and the decision was quashed by the Court.
Lesson: Where there is evidence of a viable alternative potential future use for a property then such issue will be a material planning consideration and require the decision maker to undertake an objective assessment of its likelihood when deciding the question of weight.
