Choudhry v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

In a planning challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, disagreement with an inspector’s planning judgment does not establish an error of law. Reasons are adequate where they make clear what is objectionable about the proposal and what would need to be addressed in a future application. Planning applications must be determined on their individual merits; permission for a comparable development does not ordinarily create a legitimate expectation of permission. Proportionality is inherent in planning decision-making, but an inspector’s evaluative judgment on matters such as outlook and overshadowing will not be disturbed absent legal error. Personal circumstances may be considered but will seldom outweigh general planning considerations.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s dismissal of her appeal against refusal of planning permission for two-storey and single-storey rear extensions to her house in Harrow.

The inspector had identified effects on the street scene and on the living conditions of residents in Radnor Road. The claimant alleged mistake of fact, inadequate reasons, failure to apply planning guidance, procedural unfairness, irrationality, disproportionate interference with Convention rights, and irrational treatment of her family circumstances. The central question was whether those complaints disclosed an error of law rather than disagreement with the inspector’s planning judgment.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector’s decision involved planning judgment, and none of the claimant’s grounds established an error of law.
2. The inspector had not mistaken the location of the appeal property. His description of it as being at the end of the line of properties, close to the junction with Radnor Road, was supported by the site circumstances. There was no evidence that he had applied guidance concerning corner sites instead of the guidance applicable to rear extensions.
3. The reasons for finding conflict with policies D4 and D5 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan were sufficient. The inspector had explained that the proposal would be bulky and obtrusive, would overbalance the house, and would increase the perception of built development. Those reasons made clear the objection and what a future proposal would need to overcome. [1991] 2 All ER 10 did not require further elaboration.
4. The inspector was not required to address every detailed criterion in the supplementary planning guidance. The appeal was dealt with by written representations and involved the exercise of planning judgment.
5. Planning applications must be considered on their individual merits. Permission for the extension at 86 Hindes Road did not create a legitimate expectation that the claimant’s different proposal would be permitted. The claimant had relied on that development as a comparator and could not complain that the inspector considered its effect on the area.
6. Proportionality is inherent in planning decision-making: [2004] EWCA Civ 905. The inspector’s conclusion that there would be some overshadowing was an evaluative judgment on the evidence. In any event, the principal finding was that the close, imperforate wall would cause a serious loss of amenity. The overshadowing point was additional and could not affect the result.
7. The inspector rationally considered the claimant’s family circumstances. He explained why they added little weight against the general planning considerations, particularly as the development would remain after the circumstances ceased to be material.

The claimant was ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs in the sum of £6,000.