is a matter of planning judgment (Trusthouse Forte at 301). The point is amplified in
R (Langley Park School for Girls Governing Body) v Bromley London Borough
Council. In that case Sullivan LJ referred to Trusthouse Forte when considering when
it may be necessary to identify a specific alternative site and said at [52] – [53]).
“52. […] There is no “one size fits all” rule. The starting point
must be the extent of the harm in planning terms (conflict with
policy etc.) that would be caused by the application. If little or
no harm would be caused by granting permission there would
be no need to consider whether the harm (or the lack of it)
might be avoided. The less the harm the more likely it would be
(all other things being equal) that the local planning authority
would need to be thoroughly persuaded of the merits of
avoiding or reducing it by adopting an alternative scheme. At
the other end of the spectrum, if a local planning authority
considered that a proposed development would do really
serious harm it would be entitled to refuse planning permission
if it had not been persuaded by the applicant that there was no
possibility, whether by adopting an alternative scheme, or
otherwise, of avoiding or reducing that harm.
53. Where any particular application falls within this spectrum;
whether there is a need to consider the possibility of avoiding
or reducing the planning harm that would be caused by a
particular proposal; and if so, how far evidence in support of
that possibility, or the lack of it, should have been worked up in
detail by the objectors or the applicant for permission; are all
matters of planning judgment for the local planning authority.
[…]”
135. I did not understand Mr Drabble to dispute the proposition that the issue is a
matter of planning judgment. His complaint focuses on the alleged impermissibility of
an escalation by the Inspector of a matter of planning judgment to a hard-edged
principle which places the burden of proof on an objector.
The Inspector’s approach to alternatives
136. Before turning to alternative sites, the Inspector considered the suitability of
Victoria Tower Gardens as the proposed location for the Memorial:
“15.154 The precise process by which VTG became the
preferred and definitive location for the UKHMLC is not clear.
The apparent realisation of its potential as such a site has
subsequently been framed as a “moment of genius” (by those
on both sides of the argument). But whether bathetic or not,
such a choice may well have reasonably been driven by a
48