The claimant’s main ground of challenge in R (on the application of Plunkett) v Sefton Metropolitan District Council [2011] EWHC 368 (Admin) – see PP 2011/47 – was that the local planning authority (LPA) had failed to consider the proximity of a conservation area and the effect that the proposed development would have on its character and appearance. (The conservation area had recently been extended to include properties on the opposite side of the road from those of the claimant and his neighbour.)
This was for the purposes of: (i) publicity for the application contrary to regulation 5A of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990; and (ii) the merits of the decision contrary to section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an identified policy in the local development plan and a number of policies in PPS 5: Planning for the historic environment.
In the context of regulation 5A, the claimant contended that there had been no site notices or local advertisements in respect of the planning application and English Heritage had not been consulted. In the context of section 70(2), he argued that the LPA had failed to consider the local development plan policy, which related to developments within or adjacent to a conservation area, and national planning policies in PPS 5. (The latter amount to a material consideration.)
The LPA argued that the application site did not come within any reasonable assessment of what comprised the setting of the conservation area and that, accordingly, its officers had not been obliged to address these matters in the committee report. As the judge pointed out, in those circumstances the burden would fall on the LPA to show not merely that considering the conservation area would not have led to a different outcome but also that the planning decision would inevitably have been the same.
The judge held that it was impossible to conclude that the decision to grant planning permission would have been the same had the proximity to the conservation been considered. The application site was only 2m away and was clearly visible. Had the conservation issue been identified, there would have been greater consultation – as a result of regulation 5A – which would have led to English Heritage, the local civic society and the LPA’s conservation officer expressing their views on the scheme.
John Martin is a freelance writer
