Previous permissions for retail use at the site had been covered by conditions restricting the sale of non-food goods. However, the latest permission referred to variation of an earlier condition for the sale of non-food goods in its description but failed to impose conditions imposing any such restrictions on the use. Citing Reid v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Mid Bedfordshire District Council , the council maintained that the restriction on the use was implied by the interrelationship between the earlier and latest permissions.
The inspector quoted Dunnett Investments v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government , which held that the principles in Reid do not extend to the creation and incorporation of an entirely new condition that "simply does not appear". The variation of the earlier condition could not be achieved solely by including additional wording in the new description of development but needed to be effected through a specific condition restricting the use, she held.
Inspector: Melissa Hall: Hearing