Local planning authority granting planning permission for residential development on site adjoining claimant’s land – Developers seeking to vary development – Permission refused – Developers appealing – Appeals dealt with by way of written representations – Inspectors allowing appeals – Claimant seeking to quash decisions – Claim dismissed
The claimant’s property adjoined a site (the appeal site) with a complicated planning history. In 1998 Wychavon District Council (the local planning authority) granted a developer planning permission for residential development at the site. The developer sought to alter phase II of the development. First, the developer applied to substitute house types on a number of plots. The local planning authority refused permission for the substitution and the developer appealed. The appeal was dealt with by way of written representations and, in a decision letter of April 2000, the inspector allowed the appeal. Second, the developer applied for planning permission for the erection of 14 dwellings on an area of land similar to that in the substitution appeal. The local planning authority failed to determine the application within the prescribed time and the developer appealed. The appeal was again dealt with by way of written representations and allowed by the inspector in his decision of June 2000. The claimant sought to challenge both decision letters, pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The claimant submitted that, inter alia, (i) all necessary parties were not given the opportunity to formally present their case regarding the appeals and it was unreasonable to have proceeded by way of written representations; (ii) the inspectors failed to have regard to the provisions in the Development Plan.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
Both the developer and the local planning authority were content that the appeals were dealt with by way of written representations. The defendant acted lawfully in acceding to the parties’ wishes to do so. The defendant could have exercised its discretion and held an inquiry, however, there was nothing to suggest that the decision not to do so was unfair. The claimant had put all the points he wanted to make in writing before the inspectors. He had every opportunity to put his case. The task of the inspectors was to examine whether, given the 1998 permission, there was anything in the proposals before them that was undesirable. Both inspectors clearly identified the policies in the Development Plan and addressed their implications upon the proposals. They went on to conclude that there was no material conflict between the proposals and the relevant Development Plan policies.
Claimant appeared in person; Jonathan Karas (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
