Plans for a subterranean gym to serve Victorian mansions in Marylebone have suffered a blow, after a judge allowed a judicial review challenge from the occupiers of one block.
Long leaseholders of 2A Portman Mansions, currently used as offices, took the matter to court claiming the plans for a single-storey development, which will require some excavation works and will also provide an estate office and meeting rooms as well as a residents’ gym, would be only 1.5 metres away from windows in their lower ground floor premises.
They raised concerns about overshadowing and loss of daylight, as well as loss of privacy, an increased sense of enclosure, overlooking and the impact of noise and disturbance from the use of the new facilities.
They alleged that, in granting planning permission in April, Westminster City Council failed to consider their objections, failed to ensure there was sufficient information about the impact on amenity of the proposed development and failed to comply with planning policy.
Ruling that the judicial review claim should succeed, Deputy Judge John Howell QC said that the permission replaced an earlier one granted in 2013 that was set to expire, and that the local authority had wrongly taken the view that, in those circumstances, the amenity objections were not considered sustainable.
The judge said that the report indicated “erroneously” that the amenity objections did not constitute a reason for refusing consent as permission had previously been granted for the same development, and that this was a “misdirection” because those complaints had not been considered during consideration of the earlier application.
He found that the council did not have sufficient information on the amenity impacts, and failed to correctly apply development plan policy which required a conclusion to be made on the extent of any loss of daylight.
The judge said that the proposed development will involve a “sheer wall in front of the windows at lower ground level”, but no conclusion was reached on whether the impact would be “material”.
R (on the application of Shasha and others) v Westminster City Council Planning Court (Deputy judge John Howell QC) 19 December 2016
