CA 14 June 1991. By a decision letter dated 1 August 1989, the SoS refused outline consent for development of a former MoD site as a superstore, petrol filling station and ancillary development. At the public inquiry the Inspector considered the `effect upon the residential amenities of local people` of the superstore proposal. He held that it was likely to bring a greater volume of traffic to the area and it would cause disturbance for local people in the quiet enjoyment of their homes. The appellants, S, were dissatisfied with the manner in which the inspector had dealt with their offer to provide financial assistance for implementation of Traffic Management Measures (TMM) which they claimed would alleviate the problem. They contended the TMM would constitute a planning gain. S took this point to HC and it was dismissed. CA held that the inspector had been wrong to exclude consideration of S`s offer, as he had misinterpreted DoE Circular 22/83, which defined planning gain. S had no