Trend Properties Ltd., R (on the application of) v Borough of Islington & Anor

On a planning appeal under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court reviews the Inspector’s legal interpretation of the development plan but does not substitute its own view on planning weight or aesthetic judgment. A plan may require consideration of matters such as outlook and a sense of enclosure where its amenity policies and reasoned justification identify those concerns. The Inspector must compare the proposal with any realistic permitted fallback development. A site visit need not include neighbouring interiors where the Inspector can fairly assess the relevant effects from the site and surrounding context. Adequate reasons are assessed in the context of the decision as a whole.

The claimant challenged, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an Inspector’s dismissal of an appeal concerning the proposed erection of a two-storey dwelling in a conservation area. The challenge alleged that the Inspector had misinterpreted the development plan, acted unfairly by not visiting neighbouring properties, ignored the permitted single-storey fallback, and failed to give adequate reasons. The central issue was whether the Inspector had committed an error of law or procedural unfairness.

1. The application was dismissed. The Inspector’s decision was legally open to him and his reasons were adequate.
2. The court may construe a development plan unless two alternative interpretations are clearly available. The reasoned justification formed part of the plan under section 12(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Policy D3 therefore permitted consideration of outlook and sense of enclosure as aspects of amenity, notwithstanding that those words were not expressly used in the policy.
3. The court applied the distinction between legal interpretation and planning judgment. Weight and opinion were primarily for the Inspector, and the court could not substitute its own assessment for his conclusion that retaining a visual gap was preferable to infilling it.
4. The site visit was not procedurally unfair. Although the Inspector had not viewed the outlook directly from the neighbouring properties, he was experienced, had visited the site and could reasonably envisage the relevant effects.
5. The Inspector had considered the fallback position by comparing the proposed two-storey dwelling with the single-storey residential development capable of proceeding under existing permissions.
6. The Inspector had considered the expert evidence, even though he did not expressly refer to every submission. His reasons adequately explained why the visual gap was important.
7. Costs were summarily assessed at £4,300 in favour of the first defendant.

The judgment records that the proceedings were an appeal under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a Planning Inspector’s decision dated 14 May 2004. An earlier delay issue had been resolved by Ouseley J. The application was dismissed, with costs summarily assessed at £4,300.