Spa Properties Ltd., R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

On an appeal under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court will not interfere with an inspector’s planning judgment merely because another view is possible. An inspector may assess the effective scale and visual impact of a proposal, including accommodation contained within a roof space, and may consider both actual overlooking and the perception of overlooking. Reasons are sufficient where, read fairly and as a whole, they explain the planning conflict and provide practical guidance about how an acceptable proposal might be formulated. The inspector need not address an argument that was not advanced before him, and the court will intervene only where a material error of law or an irrational conclusion is established.

The claimant appealed under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against an inspector’s dismissal of an appeal arising from Elmbridge Borough Council’s failure to determine an application for planning permission. The proposal included flats fronting Walton Road and three terraces of houses behind the site. The inspector accepted the flats but considered the houses harmful to the character and appearance of the area and to residential amenity because of their effective three-storey scale, overlooking and overbearing effect.

The claimant advanced six grounds, including alleged bias, misunderstanding of the proposal, failure to consider screening and landscaping, reliance on perception of loss of privacy, and inadequacy of reasons.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The inspector’s decision disclosed no material error of law.
2. The reference to qualified architects and designers was a quotation from the residential design guidance explaining the status of guidelines. Properly understood, the inspector was assessing the quality and creativity of the design, not whether the plans had been professionally prepared. That was a relevant planning consideration.
3. The inspector was entitled to treat the houses as effectively three-storey buildings because substantial accommodation was contained within the roof space. The assessment of their incompatibility with predominantly two-storey surroundings, and of their visual isolation, involved planning judgment with which the court could not interfere.
4. The inspector had considered the proposed retention and replacement of screening. He was entitled to conclude that the proximity of access roads and buildings to the boundaries would make effective screening difficult and would add weight to the adverse conclusion.
5. The inspector was not required to address a comparison based on existing screening around the site because that argument had not been advanced in the representations. Intervention would in any event require a conclusion that no inspector could reasonably have reached the relevant planning judgment.
6. It was legitimate to consider both the perception of overlooking from obscure-glazed windows and actual overlooking from bedroom windows close to the boundaries. The inspector’s reasoning, although expressed in an imperfect sequence, was intelligible.
7. The reasons were adequate. Read as a whole, the decision letter explained the conflict with development-plan policies and indicated that a similar density might be achieved through smaller houses, allowing greater flexibility in layout. It was unnecessary for the inspector to prescribe every acceptable alternative.

The respondent’s costs were assessed at £3,410.

1. Inspector: dismissed the planning appeal arising from the local planning authority’s failure to determine the application.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and assessed costs at £3,410.