Material consideration — Enlargement of outbuilding — Previous planning application — Building with flat roof — Whether inspector properly considered proposals on their merits
In April 1988 planning permission was granted for an extension with a pitched and hipped roof within the curtilage of The Chase, Hadley Common, Barnet, Hertfordshire, a large residential property listed as Grade II and situated in a conservation area. On the site of the new extension there was a flat-roofed garage. The applicant completed the new building with a flat roof, finished with a wooden fascia board.
The applicant sought to have quashed the decision of the inspector dated January 22 1991 whereby he had dismissed: (1) an appeal against an enforcement notice issued by the second respondents, Barnet London Borough Council, which alleged breach of planning control and required the removal of the building; and (2) appeals against the refusal of planning permission and listed building consent for the retention of the flat-roofed extension. It was submitted that the inspector had given weight to a non-material consideration, namely the pitched-roof design in the original application, and had not addressed the real question of the flat roof the subject of the subsequent applications, which should have been considered as a proposal on its own.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
The inspector had dealt with the appeals on their merits. He had followed the guidance of Widgery LJ in Pilkington v Secretary of State for the Environment [1973] 1 WLR 1527 and had had regard to the applications as proposals in themselves and applied his mind to each application. He may have expressed himself in different language but he had considered the merits of the flat roof.
Barry Payton (instructed by Derrick Bridges & Co, of Barnet) appeared for the applicant; and James Holdsworth (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent. The second respondents, Barnet London Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
