Council serving enforcement notices – Applicant appealing – Inspector dismissing appeal and refusing planning permission in respect of each notice – Whether inspector considered conditions proposed by applicant – Appeal dismissed
The applicant was the owner of Oakhill, Hopton, Nesscliffe, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, which had extant planning permission to construct a covered swimming pool in his garden on the north side on the house. The second respondents, Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council, served four enforcement notices on the applicant in respect of his property which became known as notice “A”, which dealt with an extension northwards, and notice “C”, which dealt with a western extension. In addition, the council refused planning permission for an extension over part of the notice C land for the construction of a new access. The applicant appealed against the notices and applied for planning permission in relation to each notice. The applicant also appealed against the refusal of planning permission. The inspector hearing the appeal upheld the enforcement notices finding “that the continuation of the domestic garden use would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of its attractive rural surroundings”, but allowed the appeal against the refusal of planning permission.
The applicant contended that in relation to notice A the inspector had failed to consider a material consideration for the purposes of section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, because he had only considered the existing landscaping scheme, and had failed to consider whether a condition requiring further landscaping would have made the development acceptable and ameliorate the impact of the swimming pool in the landscape. It was further contended that the inspector had erred in his finding that car parking and vehicle access on the hardstanding and driveway on the notice C land would be visually unacceptable, because he had failed to consider whether this could be adequately addressed by a condition restricting the use of land to car parking, and thereby failed to take account of matters which he should have considered.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. Although, in relation to notice A, the inspector had not made a reference to the condition of further landscaping, there was no doubt that if he had failed to consider the condition, his decision would have been the same. He had found that it would have a harmful effect on the surroundings. The conditions proposed only referred to the northern boundary whereas the inspector had found that the property could be viewed from the east, north and west and the extensions would have effected each of those views causing harm to the character and appearance of the locality.
2.The inspector had not failed to have regard to such conditions put before him in relation to notice C. His decision related not only to parking vehicles, but also to uses for other than parking, namely the movement of vehicles, and he had been entitled to conclude that that would be harmful and visually unacceptable.
Hugh Richards (Hatcher Rogerson, of Shrewsbury) appeared for the applicant; Jonathan Karas (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council did not appear and were not represented.
