Development — Commercial premises in pedestrianised street — Council refusing permission for use of premises as radio-controlled mini-cab office — Proposed use having adverse effect upon highway safety and neighbours’ living conditions Planning inspector dismissing appeal against refusal — Whether inspector erring in finding that conditions not mitigating harmful effects — Appeal dismissed
The appellant occupied premises from which she operated a business providing private car hire. The premises had been used as a mini-cab office and had been the subject of temporary and personal planning permission for such use from 1994 to 1997. An extension of that permission was refused in 1998 and subsequent appeals against enforcement action and prosecution were dismissed.
The appellant applied for planning permission in 2001, when she became associated with the premises. The application was refused by the second respondents on grounds of highway safety and convenience and residential amenity. An inspector appointed by the first respondent dismissed an appeal against that refusal but the appellant appealed again, pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The decision was quashed by consent and the matter was reheard.
The second inspector dismissed the appeal on the ground that the proposed use would have a harmful effect upon highway safety and upon neighbours’ living conditions in respect of noise and disturbance. The appellant had proposed conditions that, she claimed, would mitigate any detrimental effects of the proposed use, but the inspector concluded that it would not be practical to enforce them.
The appellant appealed, contending that the inspector had erred in law in finding that the use would be adverse to highway safety and neighbours’ living conditions and that the imposition of conditions would not mitigate those harmful effects.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The inspector had been entitled to find that the use of the premises as a mini-cab office would have a detrimental effect upon highway safety and neighbours’ living conditions.
It was clear that she had been aware of the general demand for taxis in the area and had considered other matters for and against the proposal, but she had been entitled, as a matter of planning judgment, to conclude that none of those matters outweighed the harmful effects that she found.
Further, the question of whether it would be appropriate to grant conditional planning permission was a matter of planning judgment and, having considered all the evidence, it was for the inspector to decide whether, in practical terms, the suggested conditions would be enforceable. She was entitled to be concerned about enforceability and to form a judgment on the material before her, applying common sense to the issue.
Timothy Buley (instructed by Wilson Barca) appeared for the appellant; Paul Greatorex (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents, Westminster London Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
