Angling development stopped by courts

Three judges allowed an appeal by Michael Parker, who lives at Catsfield Manor on Church Road, Catsfield, and quashed a Government inspector's decision to grant planning permission for the works at the Wyland International Angling Centre, on Powdermill Lane, Catsfield, deep in the heart of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Giving the court's ruling, Lord Justice Elias ordered the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, John Denham, to have the matter reconsidered, after concluding that the planning inspector who granted permission failed to give adequate reasons explaining his decision.

Planning permission was granted by the inspector in December last year after Rother District Council had rejected an application by the owner of the angling centre, Peter Bull, for approval of the scheme.

The inspector granted permission for the provision of 15 cabins, a new facilities building and workshop/store, works to combine two existing dwellings into one and the erection of a brand new dwelling, concluding that the overall effect would be to "significantly improve the appearance of the existing site in the AONB and enhance the economic and social well being of the area".

He found that the scheme would result in the removal of nine caravans and dilapidated buildings from the site.

Mr Parker, who claims to represent a number of local residents aggrieved by the planning permission, claimed the inspector was wrong to overturn the council's stance.

Last August, however, Mr Parker failed in a challenge to the planning permission at London's High Court. Deputy Judge Keith Lindblom QC ruled then that the inspector's decision should stand.

At the Court of Appeal, Mr Parker has renewed his challenge to the proposal which he described as a "visual blight."

He claimed that the inspector had failed properly to apply his mind to the crucial question of whether the site was an existing static caravan or chalet site in the eyes of the law.

He claimed that Rother District Council supported him, but was precluded by financial circumstances from challenging the inspector's decision itself.

Finding in Mr Parker's favour last Thursday, Lord Justice Elias said: "Is it clear why the inspector reached the decision he did? I have come to the conclusion that it is not, and that the appellant has "genuinely been substantially prejudiced" by the failure to provide adequate reasons."

He said that the inspector failed to explain why he considered that the proposal would improve the appearance of the site, and in so doing whether he had regard to the touring caravans on the site, the static caravans, the chalets or some combination of them all.

He said that it was common ground between the parties that the inspector was not entitled to take the touring caravans, and went on to conclude that the static caravans should also have been disregarded because it was not lawful to use them to provide accommodation.

He said that, if the inspector took these into account when he ought not to have done, this would involve an error of law that could have been material to his decision.

He concluded: "There is a real question mark over whether the inspector properly directed himself as to the appropriate factors to consider when assessing the nature of the site. Whilst I am not satisfied that he wrongly understood what the policy required, I am left in real doubt how he applied the policy to the facts. Reasons would have resolved that one way or the other. Without reasons, the appellant is not able to say whether the inspector has reached a conclusion in accordance with the law or not."