Local authority — Conservation area — Delegation of functions to officer — Officer granting planning permission — Claimant objecting to grant of permission — Whether officer acting within scope of delegated powers — Application dismissed
The claimant owned and occupied a detached dwellinghouse in the Twickenham riverside conservation area. The owner of a site adjacent to the claimant’s property applied for planning permission for the demolition of the existing single-storey dwelling and the erection of a new one.
Because the site was within a conservation area and the existing house was of townscape importance, the local supplementary planning guidance contained a presumption against its demolition. The claimant notified the defendant local authority of his objection to the proposed development and was supplied with a guidance note as to the procedure to be followed. However, the note failed to point out that the claimant was entitled to have his objections considered by the planning committee. Consequently, he did not ask for the matter to go before the committee, and the development control manager (DCM), purporting to act under the defendants’ scheme of delegation, granted the planning permission.
The scheme delegated functions to the DCM, but reserved matters to the planning committee “where officers recommended a decision contrary to the… written views of interested third parties”, except where applications were in accordance with any supplementary planning guidance and where third parties that had expressed a view had not indicated a wish to address the planning committee.
The claimant applied for judicial review of the decision to grant planning permission contending that the defendants had: (i) unlawfully denied him an opportunity to have his objection considered by the planning committee, contrary to his legitimate expectation that he would be able to participate in the planning process; and (ii) acted ultra vires in granting the planning permission under the powers delegated to the DCM since the matter did not accord with supplementary planning guidance.
Held: The application was dismissed.
It was clear from the scheme of delegation, as published by the defendants, that an objector could request a matter to be heard by the planning committee even though that possibility had not been brought specifically to the claimant’s attention. Accordingly, the claimant had not been denied the possibility of a hearing before the committee in breach of his legitimate expectation.
Furthermore, the decision to grant planning permission had not been ultra vires. The presumption against demolition in the planning policy did not mean that, in every case, demolition would be contrary to policy. In the present case, the question was whether the proposed development accorded with the supplementary planning guidance. It was clear from the delegated report that the DCM had considered the relevant planning issues and had in mind the presumption against demolition. There was no general rule that the planning committee had to consider a matter wherever an issue arose as to the meaning or application of a particular planning policy. The basis upon which the DCM made his decision was clear and he had been entitled to conclude that the proposal accorded with the material planning guidance as an exception to the general presumption against demolition: R (on the application of Carlton-Conway) v Harrow London Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 927, [2002] 26 EG 138 (CS) distinguished.
Martin Edwards (instructed by Rees & Freres) appeared for the claimant; Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by the solicitor to Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council) appeared for the defendants.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
