Christine Pratt & Anor, R (on the application of) v Exeter City Council
[2024] EWHC 185 (Admin)
Carol Gurajena & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham
5 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1745 (Admin)
High Court
Neighbours challenged a planning permission. The council didn't properly tell one neighbour about a change to the plans, so the judge cancelled the permission. The judge said the council should have thought about telling the other neighbour about the changes, too, but it probably wouldn't have changed anything. The case shows how important it is for the council to be clear about their plans and to talk properly with neighbours.
Key Facts
- •Challenge to London Borough of Newham's decision to grant planning permission (part retrospective) for a rear extension, decking, and outbuilding.
- •Claimants are neighbours of the application site (nos. 6 and 8 Silver Birch Gardens).
- •Main claim: procedural impropriety and failure to act with procedural fairness due to inadequate consultation.
- •Issues regarding consultation of claimant at no. 8, material changes to the application after the consultation period, and the meaning of 'adjoining' in the DMPO.
- •Changes to the application included removal of a close-boarded fence on one side and alteration of the staircase's direction.
Legal Principles
Meaning of 'adjoining owner or occupier' under Article 15(5) of the DMPO.
Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015
Legitimate expectation arising from past practice of consultation.
CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374; R (on the application of MP) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2020] EWCA Civ 1634
Test for whether a local planning authority should carry out a second consultation following material changes to a planning application.
R (Holborn Studios Ltd) v London Borough of Hackney [2018] PTSR 997
Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 – refusal of relief if the outcome would not have been substantially different.
Senior Courts Act 1981
Interpretation of 'immediately adjoining' in planning policy context.
R (Corbett) v Cornwall Council [2024] EWHC 1114 (Admin)
Interpretation of 'adjoining' in legislative context.
CAB Housing Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWCA Civ 194
Outcomes
Claim allowed.
The Defendant (London Borough of Newham) failed to re-consult the First Claimant regarding a material change to the application (stair realignment) after the initial consultation period, despite confusing initial plans. While the Defendant was not obligated to consult the Second Claimant, a failure to consider consultation regarding the amended plans was also noted.
No obligation to consult the Second Claimant initially.
The Court found the council's judgment on who to consult was not unreasonable, and the Second Claimant's property was not considered 'adjoining' under a narrow interpretation of Article 15(5) DMPO.
No need to re-consult on fencing.
The First Claimant had already adequately expressed her views on the fence in her initial submission, which covered the current situation.
Application of Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
While the Court found a duty to re-consult the First Claimant on the stair change, the potential impact of non-consultation on the Second Claimant was deemed unlikely to have altered the outcome. Therefore, relief was refused under Section 31(2A) for the Second Claimant.
Similar Cases
Bedford Park Developments v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2337 (Admin)
Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)
Elizabeth Soilleux v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities
[2023] EWHC 204 (Admin)
Krystyna Knight, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Harrow
[2023] EWHC 678 (Admin)