Outline planning permission subject to detailed plans — Full permission for second development covering part of same land — Full permission implemented — Application for development under outline permission — Inspector holding proposal inconsistent with outline permission — High Court upholding that decision
In November 1991 the local authority granted the applicant, a member of the Emerson Group, outline planning permission (no 471047) for a proposal for redevelopment of a site to provide five detached dwellings, with a new vehicular access to Church Lane, at Ashurst Lodge, Church Lane, Sunninghill.
In March 1994 full permission (no 472205) was granted for the erection of a building for Class B1 use. That permission was implemented and covered some of the same site as the 471047 permission. In October 1994 the applicant submitted two applications for the approval of details reserved by the 471047 permission. Each application proposed a single dwellinghouse and covered part of the site the subject of the outline planning permission. The local authority did not determine the appeal applications considering the proposed details insufficiently compatible with the outline approval to be acceptable as reserved matters applications. The applicant appealed to the Secretary of State.
A local inquiry was held and the inspector dismissed the appeals. He took the view that the proposed details of the developments were neither consistent nor in accord with permission 471047. As the development under permission 472205 was substantially completed, the entire development under permission 471047 could not now be constructed with the generous plots envisaged in that permission. The applicant applied to quash that decision.
Held The application was refused.
1. Provided that the application for approval of reserved matters did not alter the nature of that which was approved and was not inconsistent with a condition subject to which the outline permission was granted it must be considered on its merits: see Centre Hotels (Cranston) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1982] JPL 108; Hamilton v West Sussex County Council [1958] 2 QB 286.
2. If permission was granted for the erection of a dwellinghouse on a site showing one acre of land to be occupied with a dwellinghouse, and subsequently permission were applied for and granted for a dwellinghouse on a different part of the same acre which was again shown as the area to be occupied for the dwellinghouse, it would be impossible to construe the two permissions so as to permit the erection of two dwellinghouses on the same acre of land: see Pilkington v Secretary of State for the Environment [1973] 1 WLR 1527; Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1985] AC 132, at p 144.
3. Whether an application for approval of reserved matters was within the ambit of an outline planning permission was a matter of fact and degree which depended primarily on an examination of the planning permission itself, but which in some circumstances might require other indications to be taken into account: see R v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte Greater London Council (1986) 51 P&CR 120.
4. In this case the inspector had the relevant principles in mind in reaching his conclusion and reached his professional judgment as a matter of fact and degree. There was no material upon which the court could or should interfere with that decision.
Joseph Harper QC (instructed by the solicitor to the Emerson Group) appeared for the applicant; Jonathan Karas (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondents, Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
