Council serving enforcement notice for breach of planning control by change of use of premises – Owner of premises appealing – Inspector allowing appeal and granting planning permission – Council appealing against inspector’s decision – Whether inspector properly considering unitary development plan – High Court allowing appeal
On November 29 1995 the council issued an enforcement notice in respect of 11 Gwendwr Road, London W14. The notice alleged a breach of planning control by a material change of use without planning permission of the ground, first, second and third floors of the premises to four self-contained units of residential accommodation, from non self-contained units. The owner of the premises, the second respondent, appealed against the notice under section 174(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 claiming that planning permission ought to be granted for the change of use. The inspector allowed the owner’s appeal, quashed the notice and granted planning permission. The council appealed to the High Court contending that the inspector’s reasons for the conclusions that “there does not appear to be significant change in the level of habitation in the premises” and “that the present layout of the premises affords advantages to the occupants without harm to the objects of the UDP policies” were inadequate in that they did not address the underlying rationale of the unitary development plan (UDP), which sought to retain such accommodation, and was directed at meeting the housing needs of particular sectors of the community. It was submitted that there was inadequate reasoning for the inspector’s conclusion that if the flats were not converted there would have been a shortfall in the standards in the provision of sanitary facilities, and therefore the non-converted flats would not have complied with the criteria of policy HO3 1(iv) of the adopted UDP. HO3 1(iv) stated that flats were of a reasonable standard and not suitable for conversion if the nearest WC and washbasin was not further than one floor vertically from each flat.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. The UDP was primarily concerned with all types of accommodation and its aim was to retain stock of a particular type affordable for those groups. The inspector had failed to consider properly the purpose of the policy and therefore his reasons for allowing the appeal had been inadequate and were perverse.
2. It was an issue of fact whether a WC and washbasin could be installed at one-floor distance from each flat. The inspector had not explained whether he had concluded that non self-contained flats would or would not accord with the desirable standard in policy HO3.1(iv), and the reasons for his conclusion were neither adequate nor intelligible.
Christopher Katkowski (instructed by the solicitor to Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council) appeared for the appellants; Timothy Mould (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared for first repondent; John Hoggett QC (instructed by Follit Farrell Bladon, of Hull) appeared for the second respondent.
