Planning application — Barn conversion — Secretary of State calling in application — Whether decision to call in perverse or irrational — Judicial review of decision only — Claim dismissed
The claimant had planning permission to convert her barn into a residential property. In 1994, she was granted further planning permission to erect a single-storey extension to the property. The conversion involved the demolition of the entire property, bar one original wall. The second defendant local planning authority served an enforcement notice on the ground that the work amounted to the construction of a new dwelling. The claimant appealed.
A new application for planning permission was made in 2001. The chief planning officer opposed the application, but conditional planning permission was granted by the council, and supported by residents in the area. The matter was subsequently referred to the Secretary of State, who called it in on the basis, inter alia, of the long planning history behind it. The claimant was granted permission to apply for judicial review, and sought to have the decision quashed on the grounds that: (i) the Secretary of State had misapplied the call-in policy, in that he had failed to consider whether this particular application needed to be called in, or, alternatively, because there was no material upon which he could legitimately have based a decision to call in; and (ii) the claimant’s means were so reduced that she would be unable to pay for legal representation at any proceedings. Since no legal aid was available in planning cases, she claimed that this disadvantaged her so as to infringe her rights under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
Although the defendant’s call-in powers were, historically, used only sparingly, they were not limited merely to the consideration of major schemes or similarly controversial matters. The Secretary of State was entitled to exercise his discretion, and, given the substantial planning history of the matter and the findings of the council’s chief planning officer, the decision to call in was a reasonable one. The policy was not therefore misapplied and it was clear that, on the evidence, all the relevant facts had been taken into account when considering whether to exercise the call-in power. Thus, the decision was not perverse or irrational.
The claimant’s financial circumstances were irrelevant, since planning applications should be considered purely on their merits. Her lack of means did not prevent her from making representations on her own behalf. In any case, it was premature to consider these issues at this early stage, sincle only the call-in decision was under challenge and planning permission had not been denied.
Gordon Nardell (instructed by Irwin Mitchell, of Sheffield) appeared for the claimant; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant Secretary of State; the second defendants, Macclesfield Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
