Applicant seeking change of use of premises for hotel purposes – Inspector dismissing appeal on basis of propensity for external noise affecting amenity of local residents – Applicant seeking to quash decision – Whether inspector’s conclusions perverse – Application dismissed
The applicant was in the business of running budget hotels.The second respondents (Westminster City Council) refused planning permission for the change of use of the second and third floors of the applicant’s premises, based in Covent Garden, for such hotel purposes. The premises had been used as a public house, with the top two floors used for staff accommodation. The applicant sought to change the top two floors to provide accommodation for around 20 guests, mainly backpackers. At either side of the premises were a number of residential properties. There had been a high number of objections on the grounds of the potential noise that the proposal would create, both inside and outside the building.
The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by an inspector on March 31 1998. The inspector found that in all the circumstances, the proposal would have increased noise late at night, would have caused unacceptable harm to local residents and was contrary to the relevant policy contained in the unitary development plan. Particular concern was expressed with respect to the potential external noise, which the inspector concluded could not have been resolved by the imposition of conditions on guests gaining access to the hotel. The applicant sought to quash the inspector’s decision on grounds that: first, an unfair approach had been adopted; second, there had been a lack of evidence for key conclusions reached; third, the inspector had failed to have regard to material considerations; and, fourth, that the assessments made were unreasonable and perverse. The applicant appealed pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Held The application was dismissed.
The applicant had been on notice of the point of primary concern, which was the propensity for external noise created by intensified street activity late at night, and had responded to it in a limited way. The inspector was entitled to deal with the case on the basis upon which it had been put to her. There was no burden upon the inspector to grant permission subject to proposed conditions. Regard had also been had to the correct planning policy in respect of residential amenity. There had been sufficient evidence before the inspector for her to conclude as she did.
Michael McParland (instructed by Edward Lewis) appeared for the applicant; Philip Sales (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents, Westminster City Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
