Planning permission granted subject to conditions — Building not to be used, occupied or let otherwise than as five separate units — Inspector refusing to discharge condition — Whether inspector failed to identify demonstrable harm — Whether inspector had regard to ministerial guidance — Decision quashed
Two planning permissions were granted by the second respondents, Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, for alterations to a building and change of use to Business Class B1, of 4 Elder Street, London E1. Each permission was subject to a condition that “the building shall not be used, occupied or let otherwise than as 5 separate units”. An appeal against these decisions and seeking the discharge of the conditions was dismissed by the first respondent’s inspector.
The applicant sought an order to quash that decision on the grounds, inter alia, that the inspector failed to identify whether any demonstrable harm would be caused to interests of acknowledged importance by discharging the conditions and because the inspector had not had proper regard to the guidance in Circular 1/85 — The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions.
Held The application was allowed and the inspector’s decision quashed.
Nowhere in the inspector’s decision letter did he apply his mind to the question whether harm would be caused to interests of acknowledged importance by the discharge of the conditions; this was a matter of fundamental importance.
The inspector had not had proper regard to the guidance in para 76 of Circular 1/85. This says that “Conditions requiring that a large commercial or industrial building should be occupied either as a single unit, or alternatively only in suites not exceeding a certain area of floorspace, represent, in the view of the Secretar[y] of State, a significant interference with property rights which is likely to inhibit or delay the productive use of the buildings affected. Such conditions therefore should normally be avoided”. The inspector had failed to give clear and intelligible reasons for setting aside a material consideration, namely the Secretary of State’s advice in this circular.
John Male (instructed by Ince & Co) appeared for the applicant; James Holdsworth (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; and Barry Payton (instructed by the solicitor to Tower Hamlets London Borough Council) appeared for the second respondents.
