Simon Patience (New Homes) Ltd, R (on the application of) v Department for Communities & Local Government

In planning policy, whether a private access is a cul de sac depends on the access arrangements and the policy context, not on whether it has a public character or is commonly called a driveway. A long private access leading from a highway to a dead end may properly be treated as a cul de sac. Where an existing access serves only a vacant field, widening it, constructing turning arrangements, realigning its highway connection and using it to serve a new dwelling may properly be characterised as the formation of a new cul de sac. A planning decision need not identify separate harm from that formation where the policy itself treats development in depth involving cul de sacs as contrary to the area’s character, and independent planning harms provide additional reasons for refusal.

The claimant sought judicial review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of an Inspector’s decision dismissing its appeal against refusal of planning permission. The proposal was for a detached house on land behind an existing dwelling in Woldingham, Surrey.

The Inspector concluded that the proposal constituted development in depth involving the formation of a new cul de sac, contrary to Policy BE7 of the local plan and the equivalent provision in the Woldingham Village Design Statement. He also found harm to the character and appearance of the area and harmful effects on neighbouring living conditions. The central issues were whether the access could properly be described as a cul de sac, whether it was genuinely new, and whether the Inspector’s reasoning was adequate.

1. Application dismissed. The Inspector’s decision was lawful and rational. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s agreed costs of £4,750 including VAT.
2. The expression cul de sac in Policy BE7 was not confined to a public street or passage. A private access way could properly be described as a cul de sac. Whether a particular driveway fell within that description was a matter of judgment for the Inspector, informed by the physical arrangement on site.
3. The proposed access was approximately 100 metres long, ran from the public highway between existing houses and ended at a turning area by the proposed dwelling. The terms driveway and cul de sac were not mutually exclusive. The Inspector was entitled to classify the proposed arrangement as a cul de sac.
4. The proposal was properly treated as involving the formation of a new cul de sac. The existing access led only to a vacant field and there was no evidence that it had been regularly used as a normal vehicular access. The proposal required widening, provision of turning arrangements, realignment at the highway and shared use by the existing and proposed dwellings. Treating those works as merely an improvement to an existing access would have been artificial and legalistic.
5. Policy BE7 had to be understood in the context of its purpose, namely protection of Woldingham’s spacious and sylvan character. Criterion (f) was directed against development in depth involving a dead-end access behind an existing dwelling. It was unnecessary to identify further, precise harm caused by the cul de sac itself because the Inspector also found that the dwelling was out of character and harmed neighbouring living conditions. Those independent findings made the outcome inevitable even if the interpretation of criterion (f) were mistaken.
6. Permission to appeal was refused. The time for any application to the Court of Appeal was permitted to run from receipt of the approved judgment.

This was a first-instance judicial review of an Inspector’s planning decision. The application was dismissed and permission to appeal was refused.