Development — Planning policy guidelines — Single dwelling — Claimant wishing to develop two separate units — Local planning authority refusing permission owing to lack of car-parking facility — Planning inspector dismissing claimant’s appeal relying upon local planning policy — Claimant applying to quash decision — Whether inspector reaching unlawful decision by failing to consider national guidelines — Application allowed
The claimant applied to the second defendant council, as local planning authority (LPA), for planning permission to convert a single dwelling into two separate units. The second defendants failed to reach a decision within the requisite time limit but indicated that they would have refused permission because the proposal did not contain any parking provisions for the development, contrary to the local planning policy in force at the time.
The claimant appealed to the first defendant, who appointed a planning inspector to carry out an inquiry. The inspector rejected the appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that: (i) the provision of parking spaces was an essential element of the local planning policy; (ii) the unallocated parking spaces available in the locality of the proposed development would not provide adequate parking for future residents; and (iii) the nature of the particular locality meant that residents would require a car and adequate parking facilities.
The claimant applied to quash that decision, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, arguing that the inspector had erred in law by making her decision reliant upon the local planning policy and that she had failed to consider national planning policy guidelines PPG 6 and PPG 13, which the first defendant had issed after the relevant local planning policy.
Held: The application was allowed.
PPG 6 and PPG 13 provided that LPAs should refrain from requiring developers to provide additional car-parking spaces over and above what was proposed in the planning application, except in exceptional circumstances, which included issues of road safety and conservation.
The inspector had erred in basing her decision upon local planning policy that had been formulated prior to the national guidelines and she had failed to justify her departure from those guidelines by demonstrating the existence of any exceptional circumstances.
Accordingly, her decision could not have been reached on a proper interpretation of the relevant planning policy guidelines and should therefore be quashed.
Jeremy Pike (instructed by Michael Lovelock) appeared for the claimant; Charles Bourne (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants, Surrey Heath District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
