Planning permission — Approved extension — Extension built in excess — Planning permission refused for extension to be retained — Inspector finding significant differences between original permission and extension as built — Whether whole to be considered or just the excess in width and length — Present development considered on its own merits — Whether minor variation of approved scheme — Whether inspector justified — Whether irrelevant matters considered — Decision upheld
The applicant, Mrs M, had been granted planning permission in June 1990 for the erection of an extension, comprising an enlarged entrance hall with a bathroom above, to a house known as Sherwood Rise, Llonver Road, Blaenavon, Gwent. A front extension was built, but to greater dimensions than the scheme approved by the planning authority, Torfaen Borough Council, in the original grant. An appeal arose following the refusal of an application to regularise the work that had been carried out. The inspector stated that in considering the merits of the appeal, the development already approved was a very material factor. However, the extension was considered unreasonably large and created a very intrusive feature in the street scheme. It was sufficiently detrimental to the appearance of the road as to outweight the normal presumption in favour of planning permission being granted. The applicant applied to the High Court.
Held The application was refused.
1. It was argued that the inspector took into account irrelevant matters. He had considered the flank wall of the entire extension and not just the excess. However, he had to consider the extension in its entirely: see Garland v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1968) 20 P&CR 93. He found that the additional building — over and above the original grant of planning permission — was not de minimis and that, as a finding of fact, the excess was significant. He thus had the previous permission in mind and was justified in his approach of looking at the extension on its merits.
2. The question of whether the inspector failed to take into account relevant matters was also raised in that he should have considered whether or not the objection could have been mitigated or removed by the imposition of a condition. It was argued that the appearance of the flank wall could have been overcome by a condition requiring a window to put in at floor level. In Top Deck Holding Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] JPL 961, it was stated that an inspector should not have imposed an obligation to cast about for conditions which were neither canvassed nor offered in an appeal. In Pehrsson v Secretary of State for the Environment [1990] 3 PLR 66, it considered whether the presumption should apply, that there should be planning permission unless there were specific and convincing reasons which could not be overcome by attaching reasonable conditions.
3. In the present case, the grounds of appeal contained no suggestion of a condition requiring a window and it had not been proposed at any stage. However, there was no inconsistency between Pehrsson and Top Deck. The latter case laid down the general rule and there was nothing in Pehrsson to the contrary. In the present appeal, the general rule in Top Deck applied.
4. The court’s attention was also drawn to the applicant’s personal circumstances. It appeared that the extension was built by her husband to assist in looking after a relative, that her husband had since separated from her and that her financial situation was serious. Those were, of course, reasons for sympathy with the applicant, but could not influence the decision of the court in the present case.
Mair Coombes-Davies (instructed by Granville-West, of Pontypool) appeared for the applicant, Mrs Murphy; Stuart Catchpole (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Torfaen Borough Council did not appear and were not represented.
