VANBRUGH COURT RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION v LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH

Structural feasibility may fall principally within the building control regime, but a planning authority must still consider whether construction may affect residential amenity, including whether occupiers may need to leave their homes. That issue is capable of being a material planning consideration. The authority may give it no weight where it has made sufficient inquiries, obtained evidence that the risk is highly unlikely, and rationally relied on professional experience and overlapping regulatory controls. A structural survey is not automatically required. The duty of inquiry is governed by rationality. Planning policies concerning buildability and well-designed upward extensions do not, without more, import detailed structural integrity questions into the planning process.

The residents’ association sought judicial review of Lambeth’s decision to grant permission for a roof-level extension adding sixteen residential units and five external lifts to an existing four-storey block. The residents argued that the Council had failed to treat structural feasibility and the risk of temporary decanting as material planning considerations, had failed to make sufficient inquiries, and had acted irrationally by not requiring a structural survey.

They also alleged misinterpretation of Policy Q8 of the Lambeth Local Plan and paragraph 120(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights. The central issues were whether the Council had lawfully assessed the amenity risk and whether further structural information was required before permission was granted.

1. Claim dismissed. Grounds 1–3 failed. The question whether the existing roof could safely support the extension was primarily for the building control regime. The existence of that regime was nevertheless a material planning consideration which the Council had to assess sufficiently before relying upon it.
2. The distinct question whether residents might need to vacate their flats during construction concerned residential amenity and the acceptable use of the land. It was legally capable of being a material planning consideration. The Council had addressed it through inquiries to the applicant, the Officer’s Report, and the proposed Method of Construction Statement condition. It had decided to attach no weight to the risk because the evidence indicated that decanting was highly unlikely.
3. That conclusion was rational. The applicant had identified a proposed engineering solution, the response accorded with the Officers’ professional experience, and the building control regime remained available to regulate structural design and safety. The structural survey was not so obviously material that failing to require one was irrational. The Tameside duty added nothing: the missing information would have to be so important or central that its absence rendered the decision irrational.
4. The Officer’s Report was to be read fairly and with reasonable benevolence. Its references to building control did not materially mislead the Committee because the report separately addressed the possible amenity impact of residents leaving their homes. The case was distinguishable from Copeland, where members had been told that the relevant issue could not be a material planning consideration.
5. Grounds 4–5 failed. Policy Q8 was directed to construction detailing, buildable and visually attractive forms, and external design quality, rather than the structural integrity of the building. Paragraph 120(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework was likewise concerned with planning design and did not import structural design into the planning assessment. Ground 6 did not arise.

First-instance judicial review claim. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision in the same proceedings.