Claimant local planning authority refusing planning consent for two-storey office development – Inspector allowing appeal – Claimant seeking to quash inspector’s decision – Whether inspector failing properly to consider development plan policies – Application dismissed
In 1992 the claimant planning authority granted planning permission, renewed in 1996, for the construction of a one-storey, 308m² development on top of an existing retail store. Subsequently, Atlantic Speciality Retail Ltd (the second defendant) applied for permission for a two-storey, 726m² addition. The proposed development amounted a “large scale business development” as defined by the claimants’ unitary development plan (UDP), which stated in policy E1 that large-scale development was to be resisted unless the proposal met one of the criteria listed. Policy E1 was contained in section 3 of the UDP, which dealt with minimising the impact of business development. Chapter 4 of the UDP dealt with conservation and development issues and contained policy CD28, which provided that the authority were “normally to resist development which significantly reduces sunlight or daylight enjoyed by existing adjoining buildings”. The claimants refused permission for the development, and the second defendant appealed.
Following an inquiry, the inspector allowed the appeal. In his decision letter, he stated that the council had erred in insisting on consideration of policy E1, since that policy was not applicable to the proposed development. He also found that loss of light would not be worsened by the proposal.
The claimants applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the inspector’s decision. It was submitted that: (i) policy E1 was relevant and the inspector had failed to apply it; and (ii) the inspector had erred in his application of policy CD28. Alternatively, it was submitted that the inspector’s reasoning was inadequate.
Held: The application was dismissed.
It was important to have regard to the decision letter as a whole. The inspector did not dismiss policy E1 as being irrelevant. He had regard to its provisions and found that, as the proposal complied with one of the criteria, policy resistance did not apply. He was entitled so to conclude on the evidence before him. Likewise, the inspector had regard to policy CD28 and applied it on a basis that he considered to be reasonable. The reasons provided by the inspector were entirely adequate.
Russell Harris (instructed by the solicitor to Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council) appeared for the claimants; John Litton (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Charles George QC and Joanna Clayton (instructed by Dyson Bell Martin) appeared for the second defendant.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
