Respondents granting conditional planning permission for residential development – Neighbouring land used for industrial purposes – Whether respondents failing to take material considerations into account – Application dismissed
The applicant company stored and sold timber and building materials. The second respondent, a developer, wished to convert certain properties into flats and maisonettes. The proposed development site abutted the applicant’s business premises along with other properties. However, those properties were to a significant extent sheltered from the site by other buildings. In 1997 the second respondent applied for planning permission for the proposed development. On 4 June 1998 the first respondents’ subcommittee (the respondents) approved the application, and conditional planning permission was granted.
The applicant sought to quash the respondents’ decision on three grounds. First, the respondents had been misinformed as to the number of previous noise complaints made in respect of the applicant’s ordinary business operations. The applicant submitted that the respondents had therefore failed to take into account a material consideration. Second, the respondents had not fully understood the significance of the difference in location between the existing local residences and the proposed development. Third, the respondents had erred in concentrating on the question of whether a change of use would constitute nuisance, and had failed to appreciate whether the applicant’s ordinary use would constitute a nuisance in respect of the proposed development. The consequence of this was that the council would be bound to take action and the applicant’s business would be severely affected.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. At no stage, either in correspondence or oral submissions to the respondents, did the applicant propose that the further noise complaints were relevant or material considerations. That was a good test as to whether those matters were considered to be significant at the time. The respondents could not be accused of failing to examine a material consideration.
2. There was no express assertion in any of the documents that the respondents had accurately plotted the location of the residential properties so as to compare them with the proposed development. It was impossible, however, to conclude that the planning officer responsible for drawing up a report for the respondents was unaware of the geography of the site. Further, it was plain that the respondents, in their discussions, had addressed the fact that the proposed development would border the applicant’s premises.
3. The recommendation by the planning officer that the risk of nuisance arising from the applicant’s ordinary operations could be obviated was accepted by the respondents. This was a matter for the planning officer and was not open to challenge.
Duncan Ouseley QC (instructed by Nicholson Graham & Jones) appeared for the applicant; Peter Harrison (instructed by the solicitor to Camden London Borough Council) appeared for the first respondents; Michael Harington (instructed by Moss Beachley & Mullem) appeared for the second respondent.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister