An Eel Pie Island resident has lost a High Court bid to block plans for the demolition and rebuilding of his neighbour’s house.
Chris Springhall claimed that, contrary to a legitimate expectation that he could participate in the decision-making process, Richmond upon Thames council had unlawfully denied him an opportunity to present his objections to the planning committee.
However, Richards J held that the council’s “mere failure” to mention, in a guidance note given to Springhall, that he was entitled to ask the planning committee to hear his arguments did not amount to a denial of that possibility.
The court also dismissed claims that the council had acted ultra vires in granting the planning permission under the powers delegated to one of its officers, the development control manager (DCM).
Richards J said that it had been “reasonably open” to the DCM to conclude that, notwithstanding a presumption against demolition, the demolition had been necessary in accordance with supplementary planning guidance, and could therefore be dealt with under the powers of delegation.
Springhall, whose detached house, known as Wyndfall, is in the Twickenham riverside conservation area, was granted permission in July 2004 to challenge the planning consent allowing his neighbour to replace an existing single-storey house.
The planning consent was granted by the DCM, acting under the council’s scheme of delegation, in December 2003.
Under the scheme, functions were delegated to the DCM but, where the officer recommended a decision that was contrary to the views of interested third parties, matters were reserved to the planning committee upon request by the third parties.
R (on the application of Springhall) v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council Administrative Court (Richards J) 18 January 2005.
Martin Edwards (instructed by Rees & Freres) appeared for the claimant; Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by the solicitor to Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council) appeared for the defendant.
References: EGi Legal News 20/1/05
