University College London, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

The duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 applies throughout a conservation area. It is not confined to parts displaying the special qualities that led to designation, although the contribution made by the particular site remains relevant to the weight of the assessment. Harm to an internal courtyard, loss of openness, and harm to a historic street pattern may all affect the character or appearance of a conservation area. A planning inspector must balance that harm against the benefits of the proposal, but need not quantify the weight given to each factor. A decision letter should be read fairly and commonsensically. An inspector may rely on a point not expressly explored at a hearing where the parties ought reasonably to have appreciated its significance from the material before them.

University College London applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision dismissing its appeal against the London Borough of Camden’s failure to determine its planning application. The proposal involved replacing a two-storey office building at Hertford Place with a nine-storey student accommodation block and nursery.

The inspector concluded that the development would harm the courtyard environment, the Whitfield Street scene and evidence of the historic street pattern, and would fail to preserve or enhance the Bloomsbury conservation area. The claimant alleged errors concerning material considerations, section 72(1), the assessment of harm and benefits, fairness, and adequacy of reasons.

1. Application dismissed. The inspector’s decision disclosed no error of law. The claimant was ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £4,632.
2. The inspector had properly balanced the advantages of additional student accommodation and a nursery against the identified harm. He was not required to quantify the weight attached to the failure to preserve or enhance the conservation area. The decision letter, read in a commonsense manner, made clear that the combined harm outweighed the benefits.
3. Section 72(1) applies throughout a conservation area, not only to those parts displaying the special architectural or historic qualities underlying designation under section 69(1). The qualities of the particular site remain relevant, since the degree of rigour required depends on the contribution that site makes to the conservation area.
4. Harm within the courtyard could constitute harm to the character or appearance of the conservation area. The courtyard’s openness, its access beneath an archway, and the glimpse it afforded from Whitfield Street made a contribution to the area, despite the loss of much of its original mews character. Harm to the street scene and the loss of evidence of the historic street pattern were also relevant to section 72(1).
5. The fairness challenge failed. The point concerning the historic street pattern was apparent from the plans, the claimant’s own evidence, the council’s written representations and the inspector’s agenda. The claimant had addressed the significance of Hertford Place and had argued that it lacked conservation importance. The inspector was entitled to reach a different planning judgment. Castleford Homes v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead was materially different on its facts.
6. The claimant’s reliance on South Lakeland District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment placed excessive weight on isolated words. Judgments must be read in context, and planning decision letters should not be subjected to excessively legalistic textual criticism.

The judgment describes an appeal to a planning inspector, held on 8 June 2004, following the London Borough of Camden’s failure to determine the planning application. The inspector’s decision letter was dated 28 June 2004. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant’s statutory challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.