Second respondent seeking to develop part of premises for office use – Applicants refusing planning permission – Inspector allowing appeal – Whether inspector properly applying development plan policies – Application dismissed
The second respondent (Warnford Properties Ltd) sought to change the use of the first, second and third floors of premises in Hounslow town centre to office use. Planning permission had been granted in 1996 for the use of the ground and basement floors of the building for restaurant purposes and the reconstruction of the upper floors for office use. That permission was never implemented. Planning permission was subsequently granted permitting the conversion of the upper floors into residential accommodation. The unitary development plan was adopted in 1996 and contained housing policies with the objective of resisting loss of land for residential use. The applicants (Hounslow London Borough Council) refused to grant permission for the proposed change of use. In July 1998 the inspector allowed an appeal by the second respondent. The applicants sought to quash the inspector’s decision pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It was submitted that the inspector had misunderstood certain policies and failed to give effect to relevant housing policy contained in the development plan, contrary to section 54A of the Act
Held The application was dismissed.
The inspector had not properly applied policy H2.3 of the development plan. However, it could not be said that this error justified quashing the decision in the present case. All other policies had been clearly set out and applied. The housing policy was clearly breached by the proposed development, however, the inspector had found that residential use was non-viable and as such was an exceptional circumstance that outweighed the policy presumption against development. That was a material consideration and a matter for the inspector.
Timothy Mould (instructed by the solicitor to Hounslow London Borough Council) appeared for the applicants; Alun Alesbury (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
