Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring, R (on the application of) v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
[2024] EWHC 440 (Admin)
Krystyna Knight, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Harrow
31 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 678 (Admin)
High Court
A neighbour challenged a planning permission for a house extension. The council said the extension was okay even though it was bigger than normally allowed, because it was mostly within existing permitted development rules. The judge agreed with the council, saying they considered everything properly and the neighbour wasn't significantly harmed.
Key Facts
- •Ms Krystyna Knight challenged Harrow Council's decision to grant planning permission for a single-storey side and rear extension at 31 Blythwood Road.
- •The extension exceeded permitted development limits, but the council considered a 'fall-back' position based on prior approval granted under a permitted development scheme.
- •Knight argued the prior approval was invalid and the council failed to adequately address neighbour amenity concerns.
- •The council's planning officer's report considered the planning merits of the extension as a whole, including the prior approval and neighbour amenity.
Legal Principles
Principles for challenges based on criticism of an officer's report to a planning committee (applicable to officer-made decisions as well).
Mansell v. Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
Fallback development is a material consideration, but a prescriptive approach should be avoided; a 'real prospect' of implementation, not probability, suffices.
Mansell (paragraph 27), Samuel Smith Old Brewery, R. (on the application of Kverndal) v London Borough of Hounslow Council [2015] EWHC 3084 (Admin)
Weight given to fallback is a matter of planning judgment, subject to Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Tesco Stores Ltd. v. Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759
Planning permission under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) arises from Article 3(1); conditions apply only to development within the permitted class.
Keenan v. Woking BC [2017] EWCA Civ 438, CAB Housing v. Secretary of State for Levelling up Housing and Communities [2023] EWCA Civ 194
Reasons for a decision must be intelligible and adequate, enabling understanding of the decision and resolution of key issues; substantial prejudice must be shown for a challenge to succeed.
South Buckinghamshire DC v. Porter [2004] UKHL 33
The High Court must refuse relief if the outcome would likely be the same even without the complained-of conduct.
Section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found that reference to prior approval did not materially influence the decision, which was based on the overall planning merits. The council adequately addressed neighbour amenity, and no substantial prejudice resulted from the decision-making process.
Similar Cases
Davies, R (on the application of) Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
[2024] EWHC 2711 (Admin)
CAB Housing Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 194
Sarah Moakes v Canterbury City Council
[2024] EWHC 1272 (Admin)
Carol Gurajena & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham
[2024] EWHC 1745 (Admin)