Application for planning permission for further extension to property – Applicants appealing against inspector’s refusal – Whether inspector providing clear and adequate reasons – Whether inspector concluding proposal itself causing harm to residential amenities or whether reviewing propriety of previous approvals – Application dismissed
The applicants were the owners of 18 Hillersdon Avenue, Edgware, which over the years had been considerably extended. They applied for planning permission for further extensions. Although the applications were originally refused some were subsequently allowed. However, the relevant application, namely the proposed first-floor rear extension over the existing ground-floor rear extension was refused. The applicants appealed. The inspector after considering the application in two alternative forms dismissed the appeal. The applicants applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the decision. It was contended that the inspector had identified the determining issue as “the effect on the amenity of neighbouring properties”, that he had further said that “I cannot agree that the cumulative and combined effect can be ignored” and subsequently that the proposed extension was excessive “bearing in mind that the house had already been extended in a way which I think has harmed the amenity”. The applicant contended that an informed reader of the decision letter was left in doubt as to whether the inspector had concluded that the relevant proposals caused harm to residential amenities, or whether he was reviewing the propriety of the previous proposals and that therefore the decision was invalid on the grounds of inadequate reasoning.
Held: The application was dismissed.
1. The inspector’s reasoning for the conclusion that both proposals would have had some adverse effect was entirely proper, adequate and intelligible. He had been entitled to consider the cumulative and combined effect of the proposals in conjunction with what was already on the site. His words “I cannot agree” suggested that someone at the hearing had asserted to the contrary and in that light he had considered that the proposed extension was excessive given that there had already been extensions.
2. Further, the inspector had provided clear and adequate reasons and had been entitled to conclude that either of the proposals, added on to the extensions which had already occurred, would be excessive and erode the separation provided by the staggered arrangement of the houses and accordingly, that the proposals would be unneighbourly and thus contrary to “the aim of the policy . . . to avoid excessively large extensions”.
Barry Payton (instructed by Kanter Jules) appeared for the applicants; Jonathan Karas (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; Barnet London Borough Council did not appear and were not represented.
