Consent given to conversion of dilapidated listed building and construction of eight houses in surrounds – Developer offering gift to public of 10 acres but insisting that no less than eight houses would provide necessary funds – Objector seeking judicial review – Whether convincing case for departing from conservation policy – Whether council evaluation flawed by lack of independent assessment of funding requirement
The appeal site, Downe Hall, was a dilapidated listed building standing in its own small and much neglected park located on a hillside in the Bridport conservation area. In July 1995 the respondents’ planning committee agreed in principle to a proposal submitted by a local developer, F, whereby F would convert the Hall into five separate dwellings and construct 8 houses in its surrounds. F would then convey 10 acres of the parkland to the council for public recreational use. During the prior negotiations, and at all times after the planning committee meeting, F, the only developer to show interest in the site, insisted (with the aid of financial projections of some complexity) that the building and sale of no less than eight houses was necessary in order to fund the work on the Hall itself. While the plans for the Hall attracted little opposition, the council received numerous objections from the applicant and others to the building of so many houses, and the responsible officers were repeatedly advised, and in some cases urged, to submit the scheme to an independent assessment. However, no such assessment was put in hand and full planning permission together with listed building consent was granted on or about April 1 1996.
In the present proceedings to quash that decision it was contended that the obtaining of such an assessment was essential before the council could make a convincing case for departing from local and national policies directed to the conservation of listed buildings. The decision was also challenged on the ground that no reasonable authority would have given their consent without having obtained such an assessment.
Held Application dismissed
1. In addition to their general duty to adhere to the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (section 54 A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) the council were also obliged, in the case of a listed building, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting: sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The local plan for such buildings was strongly weighted in favour of conservation and national guidance specifically required a "convincing case" to be made for alteration or demolition: PPG 15 para 3. However, valid planning considerations had been advanced by the council for departure from that policy, notably the removal of a public eyesore, the unmarketability of the Hall in its present state, the intended gift of the parkland and expert assurance that the housing development would be "discreet". Nor was that evaluation flawed in the present case by the lack of an independent assessment. Given the take it or leave it stance adopted by F, the council officers could not be faulted for taking the view that it would be a pointless exercise, even if they demonstrated that F had exaggerated the funding requirement. For the same reason their conduct could not be described as irrational, it being immaterial that another council might have obtained such an assessment on the equally reasonable assumption that F was bluffing.
Stewart Jones QC and Nigel Seed (instructed by Milne & Lyall, of Bridport) appeared for the applicant; James Findlay (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London agents for West Dorset District Council) appeared for the respondents.
