A judge has thrown out a planning challenge to a housing development because the complainants didn’t “make representations” at the planning inquiry into the project.
Andre Crawford-Brunt and Alexander Hocton-Duncan were seeking to challenge the planning permission granted to TT Developments, which had received permission to turn the Charles Hill Nursery near Farnham in Surrey into residential property. The pair own houses near the nursery.
Under the Planning Act “any person [who] is aggrieved” can challenge a planning decision, Mr Justice Supperstone said in his judgment today. However he ruled that the pair, despite being near to the site, were not “aggrieved”.
A planning inquiry into the proposals took place in February and in May the government inspector approved planning permission.
Both claimants emailed their local council both before and after the inquiry voicing there concerns. Even so, they didn’t attend the inquiry and didn’t make any representations to it, the judgment said.
Supperstone J quoted 2013 Supreme Court decision Walton v Scottish Ministers which said that “persons will ordinarily be regarded as aggrieved if they made objections or representations as part of the procedure which preceded the decision challenged”.
He said that the planning inquiry was an “appeal process”.
“Neither claimant made objections or representations during the appeal procedure. Accordingly the claimants have no standing to bring the present application, which must be dismissed,” he said.
1Andre Crawford-Brunt 2 Alexander Hoctor-Duncan v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Interested party: TT Developments Planning Court (Supperstone J) 9 December 2015