Planning permission to demolish a rectory in a conservation area and replace it with a modern home should be quashed because the owners made their planning application using the wrong form, a barrister told a High Court judge in a hearing this week.
Barrister John Pugh-Smith of 39 Essex Chambers made the argument while representing North Norfolk Planning Watch (NNPW), a residents association that campaigns on planning matters.
The group is fighting a legal battle to save a building known as “the Former Rectory” in the Norfolk village of Blakeney. Although the building is not listed, it is in a conservation area.
This is the first time a judge has been asked to consider what to do when a local authority grants permission to demolish a building in a conservation area based on a basic planning application, rather than one designed specifically for this circumstance, Pugh-Smith said after the hearing.
North Norfolk District Council, the planning authority that approved the demolition of the rectory, publishes two different planning application forms on its website, Pugh-Smith said in written arguments.
One is the basic application and the other is an enhanced application. The enhanced form is described as being an “application for planning permission and for relevant demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area”.
The owners of the building applied for, and were granted, planning permission using the basic form, even though they wished to demolish an unlisted building in a conservation area.
The reason why this is important is that the enhanced form contains a section asking why it is necessary to demolish all or part of the building. The basic one does not.
“It remains a criminal offence to demolish this type of building… without the specific permission of the [local planning authority],” Pugh-Smith wrote in his skeleton argument.
“Accordingly, as a safeguard, the applicant needs to provide a sufficient justification of the case for demolition for the [planning authority] to be able to make an informed judgment,” he wrote.
As this information was absent, the council’s decision to grant planning permission was unlawful, Pugh-Smith said.
This situation is possible because the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 removed the requirement to apply separately for conservation area consent, Pugh-Smith said after the hearing.
However, an express grant of planning permission is still required, he said, which is the reason for the council’s use of two different forms.
In response, barrister Clare Parry, representing the council, said at the hearing that the decision to allow demolition and rebuilding was properly made.
She argued that the developers provided all the necessary information in the planning permission form that they used, and the planning committee that approved the application was properly briefed.
She said the application form was accompanied by a “suite of documents” with extra information. The application had also been subject to consultation, including a “number of rounds of consultation with English Heritage”.
She pointed out that, although in May High Court judge Mr Justice Collins gave North Norfolk Planning Watch permission to bring a legal challenge because the points “could be argued”, he said that “the claimants should consider whether all are in reality likely to succeed”.
The judge hearing the case, Martin Rodger QC, reserved judgment. A written ruling is likely in January.
North Norfolk Planning Watch v North Norfolk District Council
Planning Court (Martin Rodger QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) 29 November 2017
