Ikram v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, And Local Government

On a ground (a) enforcement appeal, an inspector may limit consideration to a narrower development proposal where the appellant has expressly reduced the scope of the appeal. The inspector must then ensure that the formal grant of permission corresponds with the development assessed. A decision granting permission for a wider use without assessing its planning consequences is fundamentally defective. A later planning obligation cannot cure that failure. Reasons must address principal important controversial issues, but inadequate reasons will not justify quashing where the claimant has not suffered substantial prejudice.

The claimant sought statutory review and judicial review of an inspector’s decision allowing an enforcement appeal, quashing an enforcement notice and granting permission for a mixed residential and place-of-worship use at 852A to C and rear, Harrow Road, Wembley.

At the hearing before the inspector, the appellant limited the ground (a) appeal to twice-daily prayers in the mosque, with no more than 30 people. The inspector assessed that limited use but formally granted permission for a place-of-worship use across the entire appeal site. The issues included the scope of the permission, enforceability and reasons for an occupancy condition, cumulative effects with a nearby religious premises, mistake of fact and procedural fairness.

1. Ground 1 allowed. The appellant’s ground (a) appeal had been expressly reduced to the limited use of the mosque. The inspector was therefore entitled to restrict his planning assessment accordingly. However, the formal decision granted permission for a mixed residential and place-of-worship use throughout the entire appeal site, including the yard and outbuildings. The inspector had not assessed the contentious planning issues arising from that wider use. That mismatch was a fundamental defect.
2. The condition stating that the mosque should only be used as a place of worship did not mean that only the mosque could be used for worship. Nor did the section 106 undertaking adequately identify or control the authorised use of the remainder of the site. It also failed to address the possible intensity of religious use, congregation outside the mosque, parking, traffic and disturbance. The defects were not cured by the undertaking.
3. Ground 2 failed. The inspector had taken account of the council’s evidence that an occupancy condition might be unenforceable. Whether the condition could be enforced was a matter of planning judgment and the inspector’s view did not meet the high threshold of irrationality. Nevertheless, the issue was a principal important controversial issue requiring reasons. Applying South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33, the failure to give adequate reasons caused no substantial prejudice because the claimant had heard the inspector explain his view at the hearing.
4. Grounds 3 to 5 failed. The inspector had considered the cumulative impact of the two sites. The alleged mistake concerning the nearest Urdu-speaking Shia mosque concerned disputed evidence and therefore did not satisfy the established-fact requirement. The inspector was entitled to limit repetitive evidence, refuse late video material and decline post-hearing evidence where the parties had a fair opportunity to submit it.
5. The claims for statutory review and judicial review were granted on Ground 1 alone.

Not an appeal from a lower court decision. The claims challenged an inspector’s enforcement appeal decision dated 1 November 2018.