Planning policy guidance — Country house Architectural design — Enhancement of landscape — Inspector refusing planning permission for new home in countryside — Whether refusal irrational and perverse — Whether criteria for granting permission interdependent Claim dismissed
The claimant applied, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to quash the decision of a planning inspector dismissing his appeal against the second defendant local authority’s refusal of planning permission for a modern version of an English country house. The claimant had applied for permission to build the house in an isolated location. It was to incorporate a swimming pool, gatehouse and garaging, landscaped private gardens and newly created areas of wetland, woodland and parkland and feature traditional materials for timber-framing, stonework and brickwork.
PPG 7 provided that an isolated new house in the countryside might exceptionally be justified if it were clearly of the highest quality, were outstanding in terms of its architecture and landscape design, and would significantly enhance its immediate setting and wider surroundings. The inspector accepted that the proposed building would make an attractive family house and that it would enhance the area, but had found that it would lack the essential formality or sense of scale associated with a country house and would therefore not be truly outstanding in terms of its architectural design, as required by PPG7.
The claimant argued that the inspector’s decision had been irrational and perverse in the light of his positive comments since the two criteria in PPG 7, namely the architectural design and the enhancement of the surrounding landscape, were interdependent.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The court was not persuaded that the inspector had made an error of law in considering the proposal in the way he had. It had been a matter of architectural judgment for the inspector, having listened fully to all the evidence. He had adequately expressed the reasons for his decision that the architectural design did not meet the exacting standards set out in PPG 7.
The inspector could not be criticised for his conclusion that the overall composition of the proposed building lacked essential formality because he had been considering architectural quality rather than style, which was material in determining whether the building was truly outstanding.
Since there was nothing in the planning policy guidance to support the proposition that it was impossible to satisfy the landscape criterion without satisfying the architectural one, it could not be said that the inspector’s decision had been irrational or perverse.
Lord Kingsland QC (instructed by Wace Morgan, of Shrewsbury) appeared for the claimant; Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; The second defendant did not appear and was not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
