Rejection of development which would upset ‘pleasant rhythm’ in street scene is upheld

A planning assessment which is logical, coherent, properly reasoned and sufficient to discharge a planning inspector’s statutory obligations as decision-maker under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is not irrational. The Court of Appeal has upheld an inspector’s decision dismissing an appeal against refusal of planning permission to subdivide a property because of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area in Kazalbash v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and another [2023] EWCA Civ 904; [2023] PLSCS 130. The case concerned a proposed conversion of an existing semi-detached dwelling in Highland Road, Northwood, north-west London, to two units with associated amenity space and parking. The application for planning permission was rejected by the London Borough of Hillingdon, relying upon three local policies and the London Plan. The property formed part of a continuous line of properties with a rigid building line and uniform plot widths. The proposed subdivision of the property would, because of the narrow plot widths, result in a cramped form of development which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene. On appeal, the inspector upheld the council’s decision. The proposal to subdivide the plot and the addition of a fence to the rear would cause the resulting two plots to appear narrower than other properties. This would appear contrived and highlight the incongruity in the street scene. On appeal to the High Court, the judge overturned the inspector’s decision, which he described as irrational since the only external change to the property was the subdivision of the rear garden. The inspector had taken account of an immaterial consideration as nothing was identified that would change the physical form or appearance of the property which would impact on the street scene. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent’s appeal. There was no error of law in the inspector’s decision, which was legally impeccable. He accepted the case presented to him by Hillingdon and rejected the applicant’s submissions. He emphasised the “strong front building line” and “pleasant rhythm in the street scene” as features contributing positively to the character and appearance of the area. There was no challenge to his finding that the two plots would appear narrower than other properties, that a side extension which would become a separate dwelling would appear incongruous or that the changes would be noticeable. He was entitled to conclude that the development would harmfully change the “street scene”. Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator