Hobson v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors

When assessing whether a replacement dwelling in the Green Belt is materially larger under paragraph 3.6 of PPG2, the decision-maker must primarily make an objective comparison of size. Relevant dimensions may include floor space, footprint, volume and height. In a marginal case, matters such as bulk, mass, prominence and design may inform the planning judgment, but visual impact must not replace the required comparison of size. A decision letter is read as a whole and need only give proper, adequate and intelligible reasons on the principal controversial issues. The court reviews legality, not the planning merits.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an Inspector’s decision allowing an appeal against Guildford Borough Council’s refusal of permission. The proposal involved demolishing a chalet bungalow in the Green Belt and replacing it with a larger two-storey house.

The challenge alleged that the Inspector had misapplied the test in paragraph 3.6 of PPG2, had failed to give adequate reasons, and had wrongly dealt with a possible roof-space conversion by condition. The central issue was whether the Inspector had lawfully determined that the replacement dwelling was not materially larger than the existing dwelling.

1. The application was dismissed. None of the grounds for quashing the Inspector’s decision was made out.

2. Under paragraph 3.6 of PPG2 and policy H6, the question whether a replacement dwelling is materially larger is primarily an objective exercise by reference to size. The relevant comparison may take account of floor space, footprint, built volume and height. The Inspector had considered those matters, including the volume of the proposed roof void.

3. The Inspector was entitled to assess the other criteria in policy H6 before addressing specifically whether the dwelling was materially larger. In a case involving relatively marginal increases, he was also entitled to consider bulk, height, mass and prominence. He had not substituted a visual-impact test for the objective comparison required by paragraph 3.6.

4. The condition removing permitted development rights in relation to the roof void was a lawful and appropriate means of controlling any later conversion. It did not demonstrate that the Inspector had failed to take the roof void into account.

5. The decision letter, read as a whole and in a straightforward manner, gave proper, adequate and intelligible reasons on the principal controversial issues. The Inspector’s planning judgment was not open to challenge merely because the claimant advanced a different view of the merits.