and nit-picking' planning challenges. He said that those thinking of
bringing such cases to court should 'think long and hard.'
plans for additional staff car parking on a site near Truro.
Newton Abbot-based Excalibur Management Services Ltd had sought to quash a
planning inspector's decision against them last April and to have
the matter re-considered.
The planning inspector backed Carrick DC's refusal of planning permission for the scheme, holding that it would have a significant impact upon the rural location and would be likely to have an adverse impact on the health of adjoining trees that would result in additional harm to the character and appearance of the countryside.
Excalibur challenged that decision on a number of grounds, but all were
rejected by Mr justice Sullivan. And in doing so he said: 'This is yet
another example of a legalistic and nit-picking approach to a decision
letter which is perfectly plain on the merits.'
He said applicants seeking to challenge planning inspectors' decisions
should always stand back and consider the letter as a whole and ask does it
make sense or is there something odd about the decision to allow or refuse
as a whole.
If the answer was that there was nothing odd, then, he said, 'as in this
case, then the applicant should think long and hard about mounting a
He said that planning inspectors were not required to rehearse every scrap
of reasoning in their decision letters, and were not obliged to repeat in
each paragraph the points they had made in the preceding paragraphs.
If they were, he said: 'That would lead to decision letters of inordinate
STRAND NEWS SERVICE