Planning permission granted for extension — Claimant applying to quash decision under section 288 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 — Planning permission not decided on grounds of private interests — Claim dismissed
In 2000, the claimant’s neighbours applied for the grant of planning permission to considerably extend their property to include a loft conversion and a double-storey extension. The claimant opposed this application, and, in 2001, planning permission was refused on the grounds that the proposed development would detract from the individuality of both properties and would be detrimental to the street scene and the character of the area. This decision was overturned on appeal.
The claimant applied, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to have that decision quashed on the following grounds: (i) the inspector was acting outside his authority by ignoring planning guidelines laid down by the local council; (ii) he had failed to take into account the rights of the claimant to similarly extend his property, in that the proposed extension would effectively preclude the claimant from extending his own property; (iii) the claimant would be unable to access areas of his property for maintenance purposes if the extension were constructed; (iv) the inspector had erred in concluding that existing vegetation would shield the extension, thus minimising the effect of the development upon the street scene; and (v) allowing such an extension would set a precedent, leading to a permanent and detrimental change to the character of the neighbourhood.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The inspector was not bound by local authority planning guidelines, as they had no statutory authority. The inspector was correct to apply his own professional judgment on the particular facts of the case. Since the inspector was concerned only with the application before him, and since infringement of the claimant’s private interests is not a ground for the refusal of planning permission, he was not obliged to consider the claimant’s plans for extending his own property or any problems he might encounter in maintaining his property in the future. The inspector clearly took all matters into account, including considering whether he was setting a precedent. His comments about the screening effect of the vegetation were secondary to his concerns about protecting the character and visual amenity of the area in general, and were not the bases for his decision. The inspector’s decision was carefully analysed and clearly set out and could not be criticised.
The claimant appeared in person; Philip Coppel (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second and third defendants did not appear and were not represented.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
