Breach of planning control — Conversion of house into two flats — Enforcement notice issued by council — Appeal against notice allowed by Secretary of State — Council claiming decision perverse — High Court holding inspector took account of development plan and guidance policies — Clear intelligible reasons given for departure from policy — Appeal dismissed
D owned a two-storey, mid-terrace house at 354 Sherrard Road, Manor Park, London E12. The local authority issued an enforcement notice in respect of the property on February 9 1994. The breach of planning control alleged was the change of use of the property from single-family dwelling-house to two flats without planning consent. An inspector appointed by the Secretary of State identified two main issues. The first concerned the standard of accommodation provided by the conversion works. The second was whether it was necessary to retain the property for occupation as a single-family dwellinghouse. He allowed an appeal against that notice subject to a condition on noise insulation.
The local authority appealed to the High Court. They alleged that the inspector misinterpreted section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, failed to apply PPG1 (1992) — General Policy and Principles properly, gave excessive weight to PPG3 (1992) — Housing and ignored the development plan policies. Section 54A required that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. PPG1 stressed that section 54A introduced a policy presumption in favour of development proposals which were in accordance with the development plan. It advised that a development which was clearly in conflict with the development plan would need to provide convincing reasons to demonstrate why the plan should not prevail. PPG3 concerned the conversion of existing houses in old established residential areas as one way of meeting changing needs.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. Inspectors did not have to expressly refer to section 54A or recite its terms. The correct approach was to look at the decision letter as a whole and consider whether the inspector had reached his conclusion in a manner consistent with section 54A: see South Lakeland District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] JPL 644.
2. In this case, the inspector identified material considerations which indicated that the development plan should be departed from.
3. In the decision letter the inspector identified the need for accommodation for smaller households and that there was a large existing stock of small family houses within the borough. He had inspected the site and noted that if the flats continued in use, there was no suggestion that there would be any adverse effect upon the character and amenity of the area or upon parking conditions. He considered the effect of section 54A and was entitled to form his own view. His conclusions were not unreasonable or perverse.
4. The inspector was under no duty to follow earlier decisions and had given clear, intelligible and adequate reasons for not doing so. Moreover, the facts of previous decisions were not on all fours with the present case: see Barnet London Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] JPL 540; Rockhold v Secretary of State for the Environment and South Oxfordshire District Council [1986] JPL 130.
Kevin Leigh (instructed by the solicitor to Newham London Borough Council) appeared for the applicant planning authority; Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment.
