Small development refused in clash with strategic urban extension

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council granted outline permission in 2007 for the demolition of a bungalow and the construction of eight homes, garages and an access lane on the outskirts of the town of Leigh. The planning permission was subject to a condition requiring reserved matters to be agreed by October 2010 and development to commence within two years of receiving reserved matters approval.

When the Council failed to determine an application to extend the time limit for implementation of the development, the applicant appealed. However, planning inspector Philip Lewis dismissed the appeal (3-page / 130 KB PDF) last week.

The inspector noted that there had been significant changes to the development plan policy context for the proposed development since the grant of permission in 2007. The Council had adopted a new local plan core strategy in 2013, which included provision for around 1,100 homes, employment land, community facilities and a new link road on the development site within the Northleigh Park strategic site.

The Council had also granted outline permission for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Northleigh Park strategic site in 2013. The proposed scheme required land within the appeal site for a new filter road and footway providing access to Northleigh Park. Lewis found that allowing the appeal would, therefore, prejudice delivery of the wider Northleigh Park development, contrary to local planning policies requiring the strategic development of the site and the delivery of major transport infrastructure in the area.

The inspector noted the appellant's statement that the Northleigh Park development was not proceeding and that there was uncertainty about its implementation. However, he said this did not change his conclusions "as the development scheme is nevertheless a key part of the development plan".

Planning expert Jo Miles of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com said: "This appeal relates to the non-determination of a section 73 application to extend the time limit for commencing development. In an unusual step, the inspector determined the appeal notwithstanding that section 73 cannot be used to extend time limits imposed by condition."

"This might have had controversial consequences had the appeal been allowed. However the appeal was dismissed, and the reasons for refusal serve as a useful reminder to landowners and developers that material changes in circumstances can render development, that was once acceptable in planning terms, unacceptable. Had the appellants implemented their permission, even if only partially, their bargaining position would have been much improved opposite the developer's of the strategic site," Miles said.