Visao Ltd v The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Neil Cameron |
| Judgment Date | 14 February 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 276 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 14 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C0/3981/2018 |
[2019] EWHC 276 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION PLANNING COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Neil Cameron QC
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
Case No: C0/3981/2018
and
Anjoli Foster (Licensed Access by Consensus Planning Ltd) for the Claimant
Isabella Tafur (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
The interested Party did not appear and was not represented
Hearing dates: 5 th February 2019
The Deputy Judge ( Neil Cameron QC):
Introduction
This is an application made by the Claimant for an order pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) to quash a decision made by letter dated 30 th August 2018 of an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. By that decision, the inspector dismissed the Claimant's appeal against the decision by the Interested Party to refuse to grant planning permission to develop land at 274 and 274A Chartridge Lane, Chesham, Buckinghamshire HP5 2SG by extending two existing dwellings and constructing four additional dwellings with associated car ports, parking, landscaping and alterations to the existing vehicular access.
By an order dated 12 th December 2018 HH Judge Jarman QC sitting as High Court Judge ordered that the case be listed as a ‘rolled up hearing’.
The Claimant relies upon two grounds of claim:
i) The Defendant's inspector failed to have regard to drawing ITL12517-SK-012 Revision A (“Drawing 12A”) as the correct site access plan.
ii) In the event that it is held that the Defendant's inspector did have regard to Drawing 12A, his reasoning was deficient in that he failed to provide clear and cogent reasons for departing from the views expressed by Buckinghamshire County Council as highway authority.
The Background Facts
By an application received on 24 th August 2017 the Claimant applied to the Interested Party for planning permission to develop land at 274 and 274A Chartridge Lane, Chesham, Buckinghamshire HP5 2SG (“the Site”) by extending two existing dwellings and constructing four additional dwellings with associated car ports, parking, landscaping and alterations to the existing vehicular access (“the Planning Application”).
By a decision notice dated 9 th November 2017 the Interested Party refused to grant planning permission. The following 5 reasons for refusal were set out in the decision notice:
1. The proposed development of six dwellings would require the use of an existing sub-standard private vehicular access drive (shared surface) to serve the development, with no clearly defined pedestrian link and no potential passing points of adequate width. It is considered that this would result in both potential manoeuvring and access issues for vehicles and conflict with pedestrians, cyclists and other users. As such the proposed development would fail to comply with Policy TR2 of The Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 & November 2011, Policy CS26 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District — Adopted November 2011 and Paragraphs 32, 35 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. By reason of the scale and siting of the proposed dwelling 6, it is considered that the property would appear overbearing and intrusive when viewed from the rear amenity space of No.54 and would be harmful to the amenity by reason of harm to the outlook from the main habitable room windows located in the south- east elevation of No.54 The Warren which would result in harm to the amenity of the occupiers of that dwelling contrary to Policies GC3, H3 and the principles identified in H13 and H14 of The Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 & November 2011.
3. By reason of the siting of the area of parking along the north eastern part of the site and through the garden size proposed for Plot 3, the layout and design is not considered to be in keeping with the character and design of the surrounding properties and as such would not comply with Policies GC1 and H3 of the Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 & November 2011 and section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seek high quality of design in new development.
4. By reason of the size and siting of the proposed rear amenity space for Plot 3, the proposed dwelling would not provide an appropriate level of private amenity space for the occupiers of the proposed dwelling which would be exacerbated by the small area being north-west facing. As such, the amenity space for Plot 3 would be contrary to Policies GC3 and H12 of The Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 & November 2011.
5. Whilst individual bin storage facilities are provided for each dwelling within each respective curtilage, there would be no adequate main bin collection area or facility which would be required due to the extended length of the access road and the response from the Waste Management Service that the bins would not be collected from within the site. Notwithstanding the above, the scheme proposed would not be able to make the provision of a bin storage collection facility due to the length and narrow width of the main access drive. This would lead to the need to place bins from six properties on the highways verge on refuse and recycling days providing a potential hazard and causing harm to the character of the street scene. The proposal would therefore be of poor design that would fail to improve the quality of the area and the way it functions contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
In December 2017 the Claimant appealed against the First Interested Party's decision to refuse to grant planning permission. The appeal was determined under the written representations procedure.
In support of its appeal the Claimant submitted an Appeal Statement with 46 Appendices. In that statement the Claimant:
i) Set out a chronology of the submission of plans, drawings and other documents submitted in support of the Planning Application. That chronology included:
a) The submission, on 7 th September 2017 of a Technical Note prepared by i-Transport dated 6 th September 2017. That Technical Note included drawing ITL12517-SK-010A (“Drawing 10A”) which showed an improvement to the access road connecting the main part of the Site to Chartridge Lane. That drawing showed the access road as being 4.10m wide at the point that it entered the main part of the Site (the north-western end) and 4.8m wide at its south-eastern end. The central part of the access road is shown as being 3.7m wide consisting of a carriageway of 2.75m in width and a pedestrian refuge of 0.95m in width. Drawing 10A is marked ‘For Information’. The Technical Note, including Drawing 10A, was included as Appendix 25 to the Appeal Statement.
b) The submission on 17 th October 2017 of a revised access drawing (ITL12517-SK-010E (“Drawing 10E”). Drawing 10E shows an improvement to the access road connecting the Site to Chartridge Lane. That drawing showed the access road as being 4.10m wide at the point that it entered the Site (the north western end) and 4.8m wide at its south eastern end. The central part of the access road is shown as being 3.7m wide consisting of a carriageway of 2.75m in width and a pedestrian refuge of 0.95m in width. Drawing 10E is marked ‘For Information’. Drawing 10E was not included with the Appeal Statement.
c) The submission on 2 nd November 2017 of a revised access drawing (ITL12517-SK-012A (“Drawing 12A”). Drawing 12A shows an improvement to the access road connecting the Site to Chartridge Lane. That drawing showed the access road as being 4.3m wide at the point that it entered the main part of the Site (the north western end) and 4.8m wide at its south eastern end. The central part of the access road is shown as being 4.1m wide. Drawing 12A is marked ‘For Information’. An email was sent by i-Transport to the Interested Party and Buckinghamshire County Council dated 2 nd November 2017. Drawing 12A was attached to that email. The email was included as Appendix 29 to the Appeal Statement. Drawing 12A was included as Appendix 17 to the Appeal Statement.
ii) At paragraph 7.5 of the Appeal Statement it is stated that “….. in any case (sic) the access road surface is at no point narrower than 3.7m which is sufficient for a refuse truck to pass a wheelchair safely. (note this is the road surface, not the overall width, which is of course (sic) wider allowing for verges).”
iii) Paragraph 7.6 of the Appeal Statement states: “Whilst it is noted CDC and BCC did not take account of this amended plan (Appendix 17) suggesting instead “,,, this was not formally submitted to the Local Planning Authority and therefore cannot be taken into consideration” we would request the Planning Inspector reach a different conclusion (see reason for refusal ‘5’ below for a greater exploration of the circumstances relating to this issue).”
iv) Paragraph 7.7 of the Appeal Statement states: “In Appendix 25 the focus is on the width of the road surface, but there are clearly green verges either side. In the case of Appendix 17 reference is only made to the overall width, ie; road surface PLUS green verges, however the boundaries of the application site are not altered, neither is the proposed clear width that is to be made available to vehicles entering and existing the site, it is simply...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Tarian Hafren Severn Shield CYF v Marine Management Organisation
...Ltd v London Society of Compositors [1913] AC 107, HL(E)Visao Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] EWHC 276 (Admin)CLAIM for judicial reviewBy a claim form filed on 8 October 2021, and with permission granted on 21 December 2021 by Lang J, the claima......