Outline planning permission — Residential development — Proposal to erect split-level dwelling — Inspector granting permission subject to conditions — Whether inspector erred — Whether development constituting unacceptable backland development — Whether development constituting undesirable precedent for similar proposals — Section 288 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990
K applied for permission to erect a split-level dwelling with a garage at the rear of his property. To accommodate the slope of the site, the dwelling was to have a single-storey appearance when viewed from the south with a two-storey northern elevation. The proposed dwelling would not have direct access, and would rely upon a shared drive. The claimant, who was K’s neighbour, objected to the proposals.
K’s land fell within the development boundaries of draft policy H22, which stated, inter alia, that proposals for residential development would, in general, be favourably considered only for sites that fronted onto either a made-up or an unmade-up road. Draft policy ST1 set out the criteria that the local planning authority would take into account when determining an application for development.
The local planning authority refused to grant outline planning permission, and K appealed. The inspector identified the main issues as being whether the proposals would constitute unacceptable backland development, and create an undesirable precedent for similar proposals. He concluded that so long as the southern elevation of the proposed building was single storey, it would not be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding development. There would be no loss of privacy in surrounding dwellings due to “overlooking” from the front or rear elevations. The additional noise and disturbance associated with use of the proposed access to serve one additional dwelling would not be sufficient to justify a refusal of planning permission. The inspector noted that the proposal was not one that would be “favourably considered” under the criteria of draft policy H22. However, as draft policy H22 did not totally preclude all other development sites falling within the defined development boundary, the case fell for determination upon its own particular merits and circumstances and would not act as a new precedent for such forms of development. The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash that decision.
Held: The application was dismissed.
1. There was no substance to the claimant’s challenge. The inspector had given full and proper consideration to the proposal and had reached a view, based upon the merits, which he was clearly entitled to reach.
2. It was not correct to say that draft policy H22 amounted to a presumption against granting planning permission for backland development, save in special circumstances. The policy limited the circumstances in which such proposals would be given favourable consideration, but it did not follow that residential development that failed to meet the policy’s criteria would be presumed to be unacceptable. The inspector had been entitled to find that he would determine the case on its own particular facts.
3. The inspector had expressly rejected the contention that the development would act as a new precedent for similar forms of development, and had properly indicated that any future development proposals would have to be judged properly, upon their own merits.
Robert Fookes (instructed by Sheppard & Son, of Battle) appeared for the claimant; James Strachan (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
