Planning appeal — Legitimate expectation Local authority failing to notify claimant of informal appeal hearing relating to neighbours’ property — Whether claimant having legitimate expectation of being notified — Whether real prospect of different decision — Claim allowed
The claimant’s neighbours applied for planning permission to demolish a single-storey garage and replace it with a two-storey extension. The local council, as planning authority, had previously notified the claimant of such applications by the neighbours, but, on this occasion, they did not do so. Although the claimant made representations to the council objecting to the development, it was unclear whether these had arrived in time to be considered. The council dismissed the applications on various grounds, including the fact that the extension would be unduly obtrusive, and would result in loss of light and overshadowing to the detriment of the amenity of the claimant as occupier of the adjoining property.
The neighbours’ appeal against that decision was determined at an informal hearing before an inspector, of which the claimant had not been notified. The inspector allowed the appeal and granted permission subject to conditions.
The claimant brought proceedings to challenge that decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. He contended that he had had a legitimate expectation that he would be given notice of the hearing, based upon the authority’s previous practice of notifying him of applications and their general practice of notifying all parties who had been given notice of the original planning application. He argued that: (i) the failure to notify him had derived him of the opportunity to attend and to make representations; and (ii) had he done so, there was a real prospect that the result of the appeal would have been different.
Held: The claim was allowed.
Although no statutory requirement to notify neighbours of an informal hearing existed, the claimant had, in the present case, enjoyed a legitimate expectation of being so notified. Similar principles applied to notification as applied in the context of consultation procedures: R v Camden London Borough Council, ex parte Cran [1995] 94 LGR 8 and R (on the application of Wainwright) v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 2062; (2002) 99(9) LSG 29 applied. The claimant bore the burden of demonstrating a real prospect that the inspector’s decision might have been different. The claimant had discharged that burden in the present case.
Alexander Booth (instructed by Sylvester Amiel Lewin & Horne) appeared for the claimant; Rupert Warren (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the interested parties did not appear and were not represented.
Sally Dobson, barrister
