Claimants refusing planning application for change of use of premises to Class A3 – Claimants contending proposed use contrary to policy restricting large Class A3 developments – Owner of premises appealing – Inspector finding scale of proposal not falling within policy and allowing appeal – Whether inspector failing to take policy properly into account – Claim allowed
A planning application was made to the claimant local planning authority, seeking the internal refurbishment of premises and the change of use of the basement, ground floor and first floor of the building to Class A3 use as a bar and restaurant. The claimants refused the application on the ground that it would breach policy SS16, an interim policy that the claimants intended to incorporate into their development plan. The policy stated the claimants’ concerns regarding the growth of Class A3 premises in the area, and provided that premises for large A3 uses should not be permitted in certain areas and should be permitted in other areas only in exceptional circumstances. An appeal was brought against the refusal of planning permission, and an inquiry was held.
In her decision letter, the inspector dealt with the aim of policy SS16 and held that the scale of the proposed development did not fall within the category of “large” as defined in the policy. Accordingly, the inspector allowed the appeal and granted permission for the development.
The claimants sought judicial review of the inspector’s decision. The issues were whether: (i) the inspector had failed to take Policy SS16 properly into account; and (ii) the outcome would have been different had the inspector taken the policy into account.
Held: The claim was allowed.
The inspector had erred in holding that the policy did not apply to the proposal. It clearly did. Further, it could not be said that the inspector’s decision would have been the same in any event, had she properly considered the policy.
Richard Langham (instructed by the solicitor to Westminster City Council) appeared for the claimants; John Litton (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
