Umar, R (on the application of) v Sheffield City Council

In a planning challenge under section 288, the court reviews the legality of the decision rather than substituting its own planning judgment. A policy requiring development to be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings may apply alongside a separate policy requirement for non-housing uses to meet local needs. An inspector may take a real possibility of increased traffic and parking problems into account, even where the evidence is limited and most users travel sustainably. The absence of objections from current neighbours does not prevent consideration of the proposal’s effect on the properties. A disagreement with the inspector’s evaluative judgment is not an error of law. Planning considerations based on differences in traffic patterns do not, without more, amount to discrimination under the Human Rights Convention.

The claimant challenged, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act, an inspector’s decision upholding Sheffield City Council’s refusal of permission for the demolition of existing mosque and madressa premises and their replacement by a larger purpose-built mosque and madressa.

The challenge alleged misinterpretation of UDP policy H14, irrationality in the inspector’s assessment of scale, character, traffic and parking, and discrimination contrary to Articles 8, 9 and 14 of the Human Rights Convention and Article 2 of the First Protocol. The central issue was whether the inspector had made an error of law warranting quashing of the decision.

Claim dismissed. There was no error of law in the inspector’s decision.

1. The proposed demolition and construction constituted new development. Policy H14 therefore applied. Its paragraph (a) requirement that new buildings be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings operated alongside, rather than being displaced by, paragraph (l), which permitted non-housing uses where they met primary local needs. The alternatives in paragraph (l) did not remove the immediate-neighbourhood requirement in paragraph (a).
2. The inspector had made a planning judgment that the proposed building was excessive in scale, bulky, overbearing and out of keeping with neighbouring properties. Her reasons were clear and adequate. Whether the court agreed with that assessment was irrelevant to the legality of the decision.
3. The inspector was entitled to take traffic and parking consequences into account. Although most users were local and would travel on foot or by public transport, the increased capacity and evidence that some users travelled by car established at least a real possibility of increased vehicular traffic. A firm conclusion was unnecessary, particularly in the absence of a transport assessment. The anticipated evening collection of children could reasonably create congestion, obstruction and parking risks.
4. The effect on neighbouring properties remained a relevant planning consideration even though their current occupants had not objected. Planning permission ran with the land, and the effect on present and future occupation could properly be assessed.
5. The distinction drawn between evening collection from the madressa and ordinary school traffic was factual, not discriminatory. The Human Rights Convention arguments disclosed no legal basis for quashing the decision.

The inspector was the final decision-maker on the planning merits. The claim was dismissed, with costs against the claimant, assessed at £5,000 including VAT. Permission to appeal was refused.