Applicant owner of coach house – Coach house within grounds of country house – Buildings separately listed as Grade II – Owner of country house granted planning permission for demolition and reconstruction of garage – Applicant not notified – Applicant objecting to grant of permission – Whether planning services manager failing to have regard to impact on coach house as separate listed building – Application allowed
The applicant owned and occupied a coach house that was part of a converted stable block at Brookhill Hall, Derbyshire. Both the stable block and Brookhill Hall were Grade II listed buildings, each having been given a separate listing in 1996. The owner of the hall applied for planning permission to demolish a garage, situated some 50 yards from the coach house, and to rebuild it on a larger scale. The respondent council resolved that the application should be decided by the planning services manager, who granted conditional permission.
The applicant sought to quash the grant of permission on the ground that the case officer appointed to report back to the planning services manager did not appreciate that the coach house, as part of the stable block, had a separate listing to the hall, nor that it was separately owned and occupied. As a result, the respondents had failed both to comply with Article 8(5) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 and to notify the applicant of the proposal. The applicant submitted that he would have strongly objected to the proposal, but did not discover what had happened until demolition of the garage had begun. It was further submitted that the planning services manager failed to consider the impact of the proposal on the coach house as a separate listed building, contrary to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
The respondents accepted that there had been a breach of Article 8(5), but they submitted none the less that the court should not, in the exercise of its discretion, quash the grant of permission, since the applicant had suffered no prejudice. They also submitted that there was no prospect that a different decision would have been reached if the applicant had been able to make objections.
Held: The application was allowed.
The impact on each individual listed building had to be taken into account. Equally, consideration of the impact on the setting of a group of buildings might, in given circumstances, inevitably cover the impact on a particular individual member of the group. While the impact on the hall was the main concern, the coach house was considered as part of the group. However, the planning services manager considered it to be of less importance than the hall, and he might well have looked upon matters differently had he appreciated that there were strong objections to the proposal. That was not to say that the result would have been any different, and no error of law was, therefore, established; nor did the planning services manager fail to have regard to a material consideration. However, there were arguments that could be put forward to show that the new garage was likely to harm the setting of the coach house. The applicant was entitled to have a proper opportunity to put his case to the respondents’ committee, which might or might not be persuaded to take a different view. The decision to grant permission was, therefore, quashed.
Michael Druce (instructed by Wilbraham & Co, of Leeds) appeared for the applicant; Mary Cook (instructed by the solicitor to Bolsover District Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
