Residential green belt settlement – Unusually spacious and well-wooded estate – Inspector allowing proposal to build second house on divided plot – Alleged failure by inspector to make firm ruling on whether development complied with local plan – Decision of inspector quashed
In September 1992 the applicant bought and moved into his house ‘Oakridge’ located on plot 4 of the new Domewood Estate in Copthorne, West Sussex, first developed in 1954 so as to afford a number of well wooded residential plots of approximately one acre each. Specifically identified in the South of Downs Local Plan as a ‘green belt settlement’ the estate was subject to policy 6 which, as regards residential infilling within such settlements, excluded proposals which would detract from the character of the settlement, or require unacceptable lopping or felling of trees, or include the inappropriate or progressive subdivision of curtilages to a size below that prevailing in the immediate area. As regards new housing within the green belt generally, policy 11 require, inter alia, that the appearance and bulk of any proposed buildings and the width of the plot should be similar to that prevailing in the immediate street scene and that no backland development should be carried out to the detriment of the amenity and privacy of adjoining properties.
Shortly before the applicant took up residence, the owner of adjoining plot 5 , who occupied a bungalow thereon, sold off some 0.46 acres of his garden to S who subsequently made three unsuccessful applications for permission to build a four bedroom house (with garage) standing partly behind the bungalow some 17m from the main lounge windows of Oakridge. The proposed house would share a driveway with the bungalow and have a road frontage of no more than 4m. In each case permission was refused on the ground that the development (described as ‘contrived’) involved the unacceptable subdivision of a well established curtilage with resulting unfortunate intensification of development which detracted from ‘the pleasant spacious sylvan character and layout’ of the estate contrary to the local development plan. Following the third refusal in October 1995, S appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment whose inspector allowed the appeal after forming the view that the proposal was not for a backland development as commonly understood, and that it would not result in serious harm to the character and setting of the locality. The applicant appealed.
Held The inspector’s decision was quashed.
Applying section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the inspector was bound to make his determination in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. Although express mention of the section was not required, his report had to contain a clear finding on whether the proposal accorded with the plan or not: see St Albans District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 1 PLR 88, at p97. There was no such finding in the present case largely because the inspector had confined his attention to the issue of whether the proposed development would harm the character and setting of the locality, having made little or no attempt to apply the remaining provisions of policies 6 and 11. Nor could such a finding be gleaned from the report as a whole which could be rightly described as ‘unsatisfactory and unfair’.
The appellant appeared in person; Natalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondent, Saunders, did not appear and was not represented.
