A Middlesex man has been given High Court go-ahead to launch a challenge to his neighbours plans for an extension.
Collins J gave Dennis Carlton-Conway, of 1 Southacre Way, Pinner Hill, Pinner, Middlesex, permission to launch judicial review proceedings against Harrow London Borough Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension to Carlton-Conway’s neighbours, Mr and Mrs Al-Bustani.
Collins J held that Mr Carlton-Conway had “very strong arguments” that the proposed extension conflicted with the local planning policy, which requires some planning applications to be dealt with by a full planning committee, rather than by the chief planning officer acting under his delegated powers to determine proposals on his own.
When the case reaches the High Court for full hearing, Mr Carlton-Conway will seek to have the councils approval for the planned extension to 2 Southacre Way, quashed, and reconsidered by a full planning committee.
He claims that Southacre Way began as a modest, three-house development, on land adjacent to green belt land, which was described as an area of special character. He argues that the planned extension conflicts with planning policy under the local unitary development plan, and with the councils own guidelines.
In the light of this, and the three letters of objection he wrote to the council before the permission was given, he argues that the determination of the application fell outside of the current set of decisions that could be taken by the chief planning officer under his delegated powers. Instead, he contends that such permission could only be determined by the members of the councils appropriate planning committee.
Mr Carlton-Conway argued that he had a legitimate expectation that his objections would be considered and determined by a planning committee, and that the officer had therefore exceeded his powers.
However, the council claim that the application for leave to challenge the grant of consent had not been made in time, and, that to grant permission for judicial review would unfairly prejudice Mr and Mrs Al-Bustani, who had already spent money on architects fees.
But, giving the go-ahead for the challenge to proceed the judge said: “I am quite satisfied that on the merits, there are very strong arguments that the proposal did conflict with the relevant policy.
“Although there is a potential prejudice and delay, which is unfortunate, in due course the architects fees may not be wasted. I am satisfied that the prejudice and delay is not such as to regard this application as not having been made promptly, and I grant permission for judicial review.
Application of Carlton-Conway for judicial review Court of Appeal (Collins J) 20 June 2001.
PLS News 21/6/01
