Hammersmatch Properties Ltd. v First Secretary of State & Anor

In a planning appeal, the sequential approach requires genuinely realistic alternative sites. Where there is a clear and immediate need, an alternative dependent on uncertain funding and unavailable for several years may not be treated as a realistic alternative. A speculative site, or a site whose relevant use has been expressly removed by planning policy, may likewise be disregarded. Planning policies referring to planned regeneration are not necessarily confined to regeneration through a local plan; the decision-maker must consider feasible redevelopment schemes supported by the evidence. An inspector’s decision must stand or fall by the reasons given in the decision letter, which should not ordinarily be supplemented by a later witness statement.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s decision dismissing its section 78 appeal against the local planning authority’s failure to determine an application. The application concerned changing part of an obsolete employment building in Welwyn Garden City from B1 use to a health and fitness club.

The inspector accepted that there was a need for further facilities but rejected the proposal under the sequential approach for leisure development and concluded that it was not an appropriate use of employment land. The central questions were whether the identified town-centre sites were realistic alternatives and whether the proposal could constitute planned regeneration consistent with local planning policy.

1. The claim succeeded. The inspector’s decision was quashed and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.
2. The absence of an express reference to section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 did not establish that material considerations had been ignored. A decision letter must be read as a whole, and the inspector’s treatment of the main issues may encompass the material considerations relevant to them.
3. An inspector’s reasons ordinarily must be found in the decision letter. A subsequent witness statement may explain the decision in exceptional circumstances, but must not bolster or expand inadequate reasons. Here, the statement cast doubt on the inspector’s recollection and sought to qualify the finding of need.
4. The inspector’s sequential assessment was flawed. Having accepted a need for more than one facility, it was unreasonable to treat one possible site as sufficient where another site depended on uncertain funding and would not be available for at least five years. A further site, from which leisure use had been specifically deleted, was even more speculative. The appeal site therefore complied with Policy CLT2.
5. The conclusion on employment land was also unjustified. The evidence showed that the building was obsolete, had resisted attempts to attract business tenants, and could be regenerated through the proposed scheme. The policy reference to planned regeneration did not justify limiting regeneration to redevelopment through the local plan or excluding piecemeal redevelopment of an existing building.

The claim arose from an inspector’s decision dismissing the claimant’s appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The High Court quashed that decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.