David Pearl v Maldon District Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr John Howell |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 212 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/2648/2017 |
| Date | 09 February 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 212 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
PLANNING COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr John Howell QC
Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
CO/2648/2017
The Queen On the application of
Ms Katherine Olley (instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell) for the Claimant
Mr Richard Langham (instructed by Anthony Collins Solicitors LLP) for the Defendant
Mr John Dagg (instructed by *) for the Interested Party
Mr John Howell QC:
This is a claim for judicial review of the decision of the local planning authority, Maldon District Council, on April 24 th 2017 giving approval for matters reserved for their subsequent approval under an outline planning permission for the erection of a single dwellinghouse at Summer House, Back Lane, Wickham Bishops. Permission to make this claim was granted by Lang J.
The Claimant, Mr David Pearl, is a local resident who objected to the grant of approval. On his behalf, Ms Katherine Olley contended that the approval impugned was given unlawfully on the grounds (i) that the application for approval was invalid, as it sought approval for a matter, layout, which was not reserved for subsequent approval in the grant of outline planning permission, and as the details for which approval was sought were incompatible with the layout plan in accordance with which the development had to be carried out; (ii) that, in any event, the consultation conducted by the Council on the matters ultimately approved was inadequate; (iii) that there was a failure to take various material considerations into account when deciding to give the approval; and (iv) that the Council had failed to provide any reasons for their decision to do so.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Interested Party, Mr David Brown, applied to the Council on February 5 th 2013 for outline planning permission in accordance with the plans and drawings accompanying the application, with some matters reserved for subsequent approval, for a development including the erection of a single dwellinghouse in the grounds of Summer House. The area in the garden of that property to which the application related was said to be 0.14 hectares. The main part of the site (“ the main site area”) at the southern end of the existing garden was broadly square (36m north to south and 35m east to west). The site also included a further, smaller area of land to the north nearer Sumner House (“ the additional site area”). The application sought approval for the access and layout shown on the plans. The matters to be reserved for subsequent approval by the Council were the scale, appearance and landscaping of the development.
The Council refused to grant planning permission for the development by a notice dated April 19 th 2013. However, an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State allowed the Interested Party's appeal against that refusal in a decision letter dated February 10 th 2014. The Inspector granted planning permission inter alia for the “erection of single dwellinghouse….in accordance with the terms of the application….subject to the conditions in Annex A” of his decision letter.
The conditions thus imposed on the grant of planning permission included:
“1) Details of the appearance, landscaping and scale, (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.
2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.
4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 12.2005/M001; 12.2005/M002; 12.2005/E101; 12. 2005/P201 Rev A; MFA/SH01.
6) Concurrently with the first submission of reserved matters details of the access and parking areas shown on drawing 12. 2005/P201 Rev A, including any means of enclosure, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be completed before the building is occupied in accordance with the approved details and that area shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than access and the parking of vehicles.
7) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no garages, extensions or separate buildings (other than ancillary outbuildings not exceeding 10 cubic metres in volume) shall be erected within the site.
8) No development shall take place, nor shall there be any demolition works or site clearance, until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme of fencing and ground protection to protect the trees/hedges/shrubs, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection during the demolition of the existing building and throughout the course of the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.”
One of the plans, in accordance with which the development was required to be carried out by condition (4), was Plan P201 Rev A. This was described (and I shall refer to it as) the “ Site Plan”. This was a small-scale plan at “1:500 @ A4”. The plan showed a rectangular building, plainly the proposed new house, in the main site area. Various measurements were marked on the plan (possibly to assist given its scale). These included the length of the house (north — south), stated as being 15.5 m, and its width ( east-west), stated as being 11m. The distance from its western elevation to the western site boundary was shown as 11.5m; the distance from its eastern elevation to the eastern site boundary was shown as 10.8m. The distance from its northern elevation to the adjacent part of the northern boundary was indicated to be 2.7m and that from the southern elevation of the new house to the southern boundary of the site was indicated to be 18.2m. Other distances around the site boundaries were also shown. The Site Plan showed what was plainly intended to be the gravel drive referred to in the application form, from the access at an adjacent road at the north-eastern end of the additional site area, through that area to the proposed dwelling, coloured beige on the plan. The rest of the site, apart from the proposed new house, was coloured green.
The Interested Party applied, on a standard form dated December 20 th 2016, for approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. It was stated that “all reserved matters except access and siting were dealt with by the planning inspector”.
The application listed three drawings that were submitted with the application for approval, numbered 16.09.01 – 16.09.03 (“ the initial plans”). The area within the site boundary shown on Plan 16.09.03 entitled “Site Layout / Block Plan” (“ the initial site layout plan”) only included the main site area, although what was envisaged in the additional site area was also shown on that plan. The initial site layout plan showed a building of irregular footprint. One part comprised a three storey house. This alone had a larger footprint than the house on the Site Plan: it had a width of 11.9m and a maximum length of 16.75m. It was also not exactly rectangular in plan form. Instead it comprised two rectangular parts, of which the western part was somewhat shorter than the eastern part at both its northern and southern ends. The other part of the building comprised a projecting single storey structure to the north, containing a utility room and office as well as a garage at its eastern end. The garage, which was about 6m by 6.5m, extended to about 7m east of the main part of the house and to the north of both the main part of the house and the remainder of the single storey structure. The resulting length of the main house and single storey structure (north-south), excluding the garage, was 19.15m. This meant that the building (excluding the garage) was located about 2m, and the main part of the house, over 5m from the northern boundary of the main site area and about 14m from its southern boundary. Its western elevation was 11.5m from the western boundary and the eastern elevation of the main part of the house was about 12m from the eastern boundary. The initial site layout plan showed a “flagstone paved terrace & patio.” The patio was on the western side of the main house and the terrace flanked that elevation and the northern and southern elevations.
A Supporting Statement submitted with the application stated that “the appeal dealt with access and layout and it is therefore the objective of this statement to deal with all other matters of consideration together with conditions imposed”. The initial plans were stated to be submitted for approval of details of appearance landscaping and scale under condition (1). It was not suggested that they were submitted for approval of the layout shown. It was also stated, in relation to condition (6), that parking and access were shown on Drawings 16.09.01 and the initial site layout plan together with means of enclosure. The latter drawing was also said to show the trees to be protected for the purpose of condition (8).
The Council advertised the application for approval of reserved matters by means of a site notice and letters to interested parties locally.
On January 27 th 2017 the Claimant wrote to the Council contending that the application was invalid as it differed materially from the outline permission granted on appeal and conflicted with the conditions imposed. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Planning Permission
...the sale of food. 122 Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13. 123 [2017] UKSC 79. See also R (Pearl) v Maldon District Council [2018] EWHC 212 (Admin), where a neighbour’s challenge to an LPA’s decision to approve an application for reserved matters was upheld. The complaint was that the detail......
-
Table of Cases
...[2018] JPL 600 74 R (Palmer) v Herefordshire Council [2016] EWCA Civ 1061, [2017] 1 WLR 411 294 R (Pearl) v Maldon District Council [2018] EWHC 212 (Admin) 157 R (Perry) v London Borough of Hackney [2014] EWHC 3499 (Admin), [2015] JPL 454, [2014] PTSR D30 425 R (Persimmon Homes Ltd) v Secre......