Mayowa-Emmanuel v Royal Borough of Greenwich

On a challenge to a planning decision, an inspector must take account of material considerations, but need not accept that they outweigh development-plan policies. Employment and community benefits, site vacancy, marketing evidence and the prospect of allocated employment use may all be relevant to loss of industrial land. Highway capacity and congestion are distinct from highway safety. The National Planning Policy Framework does not require refusal only where there would be a severe highway-safety impact. An inspector may reasonably require sufficient evidence about parking demand, travel patterns and congregation size. A planning condition cannot reliably address parking concerns where the relevant highway has no parking restrictions.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s dismissal of an appeal against refusal of retrospective permission. The application concerned the change of use of premises from B1 business and light industry to mixed community and place-of-worship uses. The challenge alleged failures to consider employment, community, vacancy and marketing benefits, errors concerning highway safety and parking, reliance on irrelevant considerations, and failure to consider a planning condition.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector had identified and considered the relevant planning issues, including safeguarding industrial land, accessibility and sustainable location, and parking and highway safety.
2. The inspector was entitled to conclude that the claimed employment and community benefits did not outweigh the policies protecting the site as a strategic industrial location. He had also considered the period of vacancy, the condition of the premises, marketing evidence and whether there was a reasonable prospect of industrial or employment use. The court found no failure to take material considerations into account.
3. The inspector’s treatment of parking was lawful. The issue was highway safety, not merely highway capacity or congestion. Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework did not mean that refusal was permissible only where the proposal would have a severe impact. The inspector was entitled to rely on the narrow road, existing on-street parking, the site’s position near a bend, the low public-transport accessibility rating, and uncertainty about the number and travel arrangements of users.
4. The absence of a parking survey, travel plan and adequate information about congregation size and travel origins justified the conclusion that insufficient information had been provided. A condition could not effectively impose parking restrictions on an otherwise unrestricted highway.
5. The inspector was also entitled to distinguish other appeal decisions because their factual, evidential and policy contexts were materially different. The claim was dismissed, with costs of £5,857 awarded to the second defendant.

The matter began as an application for judicial review but proceeded as a challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to the Secretary of State’s inspector’s decision dated 7 May 2015. The claim was dismissed by the Administrative Court.