![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Astral De La Mare v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2021] EWHC 2724 (Admin) (13 October 2021) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/2724.html Cite as: [2021] EWHC 2724 (Admin) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
____________________
ASTRAL DE LA MARE |
Claimant |
|
- and – |
||
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOUSING, COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT -and- WEALDEN DISTRICT COUNCIL |
First Defendant |
____________________
Freddie Humphreys (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
The Second Defendant did not appear and was not represented.
Hearing date: 22 June 2021
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment was handed down remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to Bailii. The date for hand-down is deemed to be on 13th October 2021.
Timothy Mould QC:
The Claim
(1) The inspector failed to have regard to a material consideration, namely the basis upon which planning permission had been granted by the Second Defendant on 21 May 2008 for the replacement of Jubilee Cottages in an almost identical location within the High Cross Estate ['the 2008 planning permission'].
(2) The inspector failed to give legally adequate reasons for disagreeing with the Second Defendant's decision to grant the 2008 planning permission.
The factual background
"In the determination of this proposal, the District Planning Authority had particular regard to policies GD2, EN8, EN27, TR3 and DC18 of the Wealden Local Plan, where the main policy considerations were in respect of the improved grouping and pattern of development, resulting from the re-siting of the cottages further north within the estate, with improved, safer road access from Brookhouse Road as opposed to the busier Eastbourne Road. The amended siting results in a clear highway benefit as the existing access and siting is very close to the intersection with Eastbourne Road. The proposal does not result in loss of property of local character and, noting the environmental advantage of the new location, complies with the criteria for replacement dwellings under policy DC18 in the Local Plan".
"The reserved matters details relating to the design of this outline planning permission for a pair of semi-detached houses hereby approved shall not exceed two storeys in height and the total ground footprint of the combined buildings shall not exceed a total gross floor space of 115 square metres".
"The application site is located outside any defined development boundary, where strict policies of restraint are applied to new development. The site of the replacement dwelling is well outside the curtilage of the existing cottages, and falls within land that forms part of the High Cross Estate – currently open grass land. The new dwelling set away from any other built form within the estate into what is open pasture would be more imposing on the rural setting with a new curtilage in open grass land. Whilst the site does not fall within any national designation, the nature of this rural countryside location should be protected for its intrinsic value. As such the landscape impact of breaking away from the group of established buildings within the estate is considered detrimental. This harm is exacerbated by the lavish character and scale of the dwelling with bears little resembles [sic] to the simple cottages which it proposes to replace or the general character of other buildings within the estate and surrounding locality. In this regard the dwelling would appear out of place.
The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Saved Policies GD2, EN8, EN27 and DC18 of the adopted Wealden Local Plan (1998), Policies SP01, SP013 and WCS14 of the Core Strategy Local Plan (2013), Policies EA4, BED1 and RAS2 of the submission Wealden Local Plan (2019), and paragraphs 8, 79 and 170 of the NPPF".
"Permission to demolish Jubilee Cottages and erect a replacement property further north, within the High Cross Estate, was in 2008, agreed in principle, by the Council.
The Council in their considerations behind the granting of outline permission in 2008 stated that the visual, landscape, grouping, ecological and highway safety improvements of relocating the property to the High Cross Estate "complies with the criteria for replacement dwellings under policy DC18".
In April 2018, the Council still regarded the 2008 outline permission for the relocation of Jubilee Cottages as relevant as the Council's current Development Management Team Leader described the various benefits of the demolition of Jubilee Cottages and erection of a replacement property within the High Cross Estate as material.
The Council has now chosen, without acknowledgement of their previous position, to disregard the benefits that they themselves had 6 months earlier described as material".
"The site is not located within any defined development boundary in the adopted development plan, therefore in policy terms the site occupies a countryside location. Saved Policy GD2 within the Wealden Local Plan 1998 seeks to restrict new development in the countryside unless it complies with other policies in the Plan. There is policy support for replacement dwellings at Policy DC18 of the WLP 1998; however, fundamental to this appeal is whether the development proposed accords with this saved Policy and if not, whether there are any specific grounds to justify departure away from this saved policy…".
"(2) Jubilee Cottages whilst in a current state of disrepair are of a simple, well-proportioned traditional form of rural cottages and in this regard should they have been maintained then they would not have necessarily appeared contrary in a rural location such as this. Whereas, the proposed dwelling is somewhat lavish in both character and scale, appearing as a Georgian manor house, with brick quoins and stone porticos to both front and rear elevations. The Council notes that the local area is characterised by a mix of residential properties, however, the predominant properties in Palehouse Common are of more modest scale and of simpler design. The Council cannot agree with the appellant in their GOA that the incorporation of the 'Thornton armorial marker' on the main front gable of the proposed house, which is seen on other properties in the locality and which the appellant alludes to as being the main locally distinctive attribute of properties in the local area, is sufficient to ensure that this grandiose replacement dwelling either resembles the simple cottages which it proposes to replace or the general character of other buildings in the estate and surrounding locality…"
"(3) The site of the replacement dwelling is well outside of the curtilage of the existing cottages, and falls within land that forms part of the High Cross Estate – currently open grass land. Like the previous outline permission…(which forms Appendix 1 of the appellants GOA), there is an argument that on highway safety grounds the proposed site is more satisfactory and that given the poor state of repair the loss on visual landscape grounds of Jubilee Cottages has its benefits. However, a balanced judgment has to be made as to whether any benefits outweigh the harm. As previously stated should Jubilee Cottages be repaired/maintained then they would not necessarily appear at odds in this countryside location and would be read as a modest pair of former rural worker's cottages. Whereas, the proposed site of the new dwelling set away from other built form within the estate into what is open pasture would be imposing on the rural setting with a new curtilage in open grass land. The impact of breaking away from the group of well-established buildings within the estate, and against which the new dwelling will be read in context with, unlike Jubilee Cottages which are read independently from the estate, is considered detrimental and would harm the nature of this rural countryside location which should be protected for its intrinsic value…".
"The Council has failed to identify any reasons why the proposed development no longer complies with Policy DC18. The Council in 2008 said that 'the main policy considerations were in respect of the improved grouping and pattern of development, resulting from the re-siting of the cottages further North within the estate, with improved, safer road access from Brookhouse Road as opposed to the busier Eastbourne Road. The amended siting results in a clear highway benefit as the existing access and siting is very close to the intersection with Eastbourne Road. The proposal does not result in loss of property of local character and, noting the environmental advantages of the new location, complies with the criteria for replacement dwellings under Policy DC18 in the Local Plan'.
The change of building from two dwellings (under the 2008 outline permission) to one dwelling does not mean that the development no longer complies with Policy DC18. The main policy considerations remain the same and accordingly we respectfully request the Inspector to conclude that the development proposal fundamentally does still comply with Policy DC18".
"...The Council has failed to identify how the policy considerations that led to the granting of outline permission in 2008 under DC18 are no longer valid".
The inspector's decision
"12. Therefore, I conclude for the above reasons that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies GD2, EN8, EN27 and DC18 of the [adopted Wealden Local Plan] and Policies SP01, SP013 and WCS14 of the [Core Strategy] which say, amongst other things that development will only be permitted if it is in keeping with the character of the locality, having regard to the appearance and general design of the original building".
"16. I note that there is a lapsed outline permission for a similar proposal related to the appeal site. Similarly, my attention has been drawn to a number of other schemes approved by the Council. However, I have little detail of those schemes before me. Therefore, I have considered the proposed on its own planning merits.
17. I acknowledge that the appellant has indicated that she has a need for a larger home, and that the proposal would replace dilapidated dwellings that have a challenging access onto a well-used road. However, neither of these factors, or in combination, outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area I have found".
"18. Although I have found in favour of the appellant related to the second main issue this does not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area.
19. Therefore, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed".
"5. Jubilee Cottages are a pair of empty semi-detached cottages in disrepair located adjacent to Eastbourne Road. I noticed at my site visit that the cottage to the right-hand side when viewed from the road is no longer standing and appears to have been hoarded on all sides.
6. The gated entrance to the High Cross Estate is found at the end of a tree-lined, unmade lane. A track to the right-hand side of the entrance leads past a range of modest estate properties on the left. Beyond the track there is a pasture type area in the north west corner of the 'High Cross Estate' which has tree lined boundaries to the nearby side roads and is populated with scattered trees.
7. The proposal is fully to demolish Jubilee Cottages and to replace them with a 4-bedroom, "manor-house" style dwelling of a similar floor area to the demolished buildings within the north-west pasture of the High Cross Estate.
8. However, the proposed brick and tile, two-storey house would be a residential dwelling of significant scale and mass in comparison to the other estate properties that would include; raised chimney stacks to either side, Georgian style windows, and a Doric style entrance with a renaissance type baluster and gable above.
9. Furthermore, the development would introduce an extended access route from the existing track and other domestic paraphernalia into the relatively spacious and simple pasture area. Indeed, there is substantial scope for the introduction of a range of activities associated with a residential dwelling. For example, this could include, but is not limited to, washing lines, barbeques, sheds, informal play-areas, seating etc. Moreover, the proposal, notwithstanding the opportunity for additional landscaping, would be incongruous with the surrounding High Cross Estate grounds which are typified by trees, open grassland and rural type activities such as poultry and small animals. As such, the scale and positioning of the development would harm the beauty of the countryside.
10. Indeed, whether the development could be seen through the hedgerows or in the wider views or not, where development exists nearby it is found in 'low-key' clusters, for example the properties found along the track, or as road facing properties such as Jubilee Cottages. Accordingly, the proposal would be a separate and distinct development in comparison with other properties on the High Cross Estate and nearby area, and therefore would be at odds with its immediate surroundings.
11. I acknowledge that the development would be constructed in similar materials to other properties on the High Croft Estate, including a locally definitive 'Thornton armorial marker', and that construction would not lead to the loss of trees or hedgerows. Nevertheless, the proposal due to its ornate nature, size and bulk would be overly prominent and appear out of place in its immediate setting in comparison to the modest road-side dwellings that it would replace".
Relevant development plan policies
"DC18 Outside development boundaries, as defined on the Proposals Map, the replacement of an existing dwelling by another dwelling in the same curtilage will be permitted where the following criteria are met:
the proposal is of a comparable size and massing to the existing building;
it is in keeping with the character of the locality, having regard to the appearance and general design of the original building;
it is similarly sited within the plot, unless an alternative position would result in clear landscape, highway access or local amenity benefits;
it does not result in the loss of a property of valuable local character, unless it is not reasonably capable of being made structurally sound or otherwise improved.
In sensitive locations, permitted development rights relating to future extensions and other structures may be removed".
Relevant legislation and legal principles
"(1) Decisions of the Secretary of State and his inspectors in appeals against the refusal of planning permission are to be construed in a reasonably flexible way. Decision letters are written principally for parties who know what the issues between them are and what evidence and argument has been deployed on those issues. An inspector does not need to "rehearse every argument relating to each matter in every paragraph" (see the judgment of Forbes J. in Seddon Properties v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) 42 P. & C.R. 26, at p.28).
(2) The reasons for an appeal decision must be intelligible and adequate, enabling one to understand why the appeal was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the "principal important controversial issues". An inspector's reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether he went wrong in law, for example by misunderstanding a relevant policy or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But the reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration (see the speech of Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in South Bucks District Council and another v Porter (No. 2) [2004]1 WLR 1953, at p.1964B-G).
(3) The weight to be attached to any material consideration and all matters of planning judgment are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the decision-maker. They are not for the court. A local planning authority determining an application for planning permission is free, "provided that it does not lapse into Wednesbury irrationality" to give material considerations "whatever weight [it] thinks fit or no weight at all" (see the speech of Lord Hoffmann in Tesco Stores Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759, at p.780F-H). And, essentially for that reason, an application under section 288 of the 1990 Act does not afford an opportunity for a review of the planning merits of an inspector's decision (see the judgment of Sullivan J., as he then was, in Newsmith v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 74, at paragraph 6).
(4) Planning policies are not statutory or contractual provisions and should not be construed as if they were. The proper interpretation of planning policy is ultimately a matter of law for the court. The application of relevant policy is for the decision-maker. But statements of policy are to be interpreted objectively by the court in accordance with the language used and in its proper context. A failure properly to understand and apply relevant policy will constitute a failure to have regard to a material consideration, or will amount to having regard to an immaterial consideration (see the judgment of Lord Reed in Tesco Stores v Dundee City Council [2012] PTSR 983, at paragraphs 17 to 22).
(5) When it is suggested that an inspector has failed to grasp a relevant policy one must look at what he thought the important planning issues were and decide whether it appears from the way he dealt with them that he must have misunderstood the policy in question (see the judgment of Hoffmann L.J., as he then was, South Somerset District Council v The Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 66 P. & C.R. 80, at p.83E-H).
(6) Because it is reasonable to assume that national planning policy is familiar to the Secretary of State and his inspectors, the fact that a particular policy is not mentioned in the decision letter does not necessarily mean that it has been ignored (see, for example, the judgment of Lang J. in Sea Land Power & Energy Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012]EWHC 1419 (QB), at paragraph 58).
(7) Consistency in decision-making is important both to developers and local planning authorities, because it serves to maintain public confidence in the operation of the development control system. But it is not a principle of law that like cases must always be decided alike. An inspector must exercise his own judgment on this question, if it arises (see, for example, the judgment of Pill L.J. in Fox Strategic Land and Property Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (2013) 1 P. & C.R. 6, [2012] EWCA Civ 1198, at paragraphs 12 to 14, citing the judgment of Mann L.J. in North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1992) 65 P. & C.R. 137, at p.145)."
"It was not disputed in argument that a previous appeal decision is capable of being a material consideration. The proposition is in my judgment indisputable. One important reason why previous decisions are capable of being material is that like cases should be decided in a like manner so that there is consistency in the appellate process. Consistency is self-evidently important to both developers and development control authorities. But it is also important for the purpose of securing public confidence in the operation of the development control system. I do not suggest and it would be wrong to do so, that like cases must be decided alike. An inspector must always exercise his own judgment. He is therefore free upon consideration to disagree with the judgment of another but before doing so he ought to have regard to the importance of consistency and to give his reasons for departure from the previous decision.
To state that like cases should be decided alike presupposes that the earlier case is alike and not distinguishable in some relevant respect. If it is distinguishable then it will usually lack materiality by reference to consistency although it may be material in some other way. Where it is indistinguishable then ordinarily it must be a material consideration. A practical test for the inspector is to ask himself whether, if I decide this case in a particular way, am I necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with some critical aspect of the decision in the previous case?"
"In order for a previous decision properly to be taken into account it is necessary that not just the fact of the determination, grant or refusal of planning permission, should be known to the decision maker and taken into account, but that regard should be had to the basis of the decision".
"I have no comments on either of those two remarks other than to state that each case is judged on its own merits and my conclusions on the current scheme are given above".
"…[the inspector] did not adequately perform his duty to give reasons for this decision in respect of his refusal to follow the basis of the earlier appeal decision which was a material consideration. In this respect it seems to me that declining to comment, other than to refer to his own reasons already expressed, [the inspector] appears not to have faced up to his duty to have regard to the previous decision so far as it related to the point of principle as a material consideration. An omission to deal with the conflicting decision, as in the North Wiltshire case, might have been sufficient in itself. But [the inspector's] last sentence in paragraph 8 suggests that he has not grasped the intellectual nettle of the disagreement, which is what is needed if he is to have proper regard to the previous decision. Either he did not have proper regard to it, in which case he has failed to fulfil the duty to do so, or he has done so but has not explained his reasons, in which case he has not discharged the obligation to give reasons".
"36. The reasons must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the "principal important controversial issues", disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need only refer to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision".
The Claimant's submissions
(1) that the location for the replacement dwellings for Jubilee Cottages in the field in the north west of the High Cross Estate was acceptable in principle and a better location for residential development than the existing location of Jubilee Cottages; and
(2) that there was a clear highway benefit in removing the existing, dangerous access from Jubilee Cottages onto Eastbourne Road.
Discussion
Conclusions