Quarry Mews Limited v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & Anor

The appellant challenged an inspector's decision dismissing an appeal under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against an enforcement notice requiring demolition of a 3-storey terrace of six one‑bedroom dwellings. The inspector found the development caused harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the Headington Quarry Conservation Area, and concluded the public benefits did not outweigh that heritage harm. The inspector gave limited weight to the environmental benefit of avoiding demolition on the basis that the argument could be repeated to defeat enforcement generally, and extended the time for compliance because of tenant circumstances.

The High Court considered whether the inspector complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and whether the inspector wrongly took an immaterial consideration into account by reducing the weight of the environmental benefit. The court held that, read as a whole, the decision letter demonstrated sufficient inquiry and regard to equality matters (including the presence of at least one child occupant and Article 3.1 of the UNCRC), and that the inspector permissibly gave limited weight to the environmental argument as part of the planning balance. The appeal was dismissed.

Background and parties: Quarry Mews Limited (the appellant) appealed an inspector's decision dated 6 January 2025 which dismissed an appeal under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against an enforcement notice issued by Oxford City Council requiring demolition of a mews building comprising six one‑bedroom dwellings and removal of associated parking. The Secretary of State was the first respondent; the local planning authority (Oxford City Council) was the second respondent and did not appear at the hearing before HHJ Jarman KC. Permission to bring the appeal to the High Court had been given by Richard Kimblin KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court.

Nature of the application and relief sought: The appellant sought to overturn the inspector's decision and to obtain planning permission (ground (a) of the statutory appeal) for the development as built, arguing, among other things, that the inspector had failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (section 149 Equality Act 2010) and had improperly reduced the weight afforded to the environmental benefit of not requiring demolition.

Issues framed by the court: (i) whether the inspector failed to have due regard to the PSED in respect of the protected characteristic of age and to the best interests of any child occupants (Article 3.1 UNCRC); and (ii) whether the inspector took an immaterial consideration into account by treating the environmental benefit of avoiding demolition as of limited weight on the basis that that argument could be repeated in other cases.

Inspector's decision and primary findings: The inspector identified the main issues as the effect of the development on character and appearance (including the conservation area), whether any harm was outweighed by public benefits, and whether adequate outdoor amenity space was provided. He concluded there was heritage and streetscene harm and assigned it considerable weight, and he concluded the public benefits did not outweigh that harm. He recognised the environmental benefit of avoiding demolition but gave it limited weight because the argument could be repeated to undermine enforcement actions generally. He also extended the time for compliance because some occupants (including the occupant of one dwelling with a small child) faced short‑term tenancy situations and other personal circumstances.

Court's reasoning and disposition: HHJ Jarman KC summarised the established PSED principles from authorities cited in the decision letter and analysed the decision letter as a whole. The judge concluded there was sufficient indication that the inspector had made the necessary inquiries (for example, by seeking confirmation that occupants had been served with the notice and by considering letters from occupants) and had regard to equality matters and the best interests of the child in exercising planning discretion (for instance in extending time for compliance). On the environmental argument, the court accepted that the inspector recognised the point as a benefit but legitimately discounted its weight because of the wider public policy implications; that reduction of weight was a matter for planning judgment. Having found no legal error in either respect, the court dismissed the appeal. The inspector's planning balance and conclusion that conditions could not mitigate the harm were upheld.

Subsidiary findings and procedural notes: The inspector referred to and applied relevant policies of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 and paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 in his reasoning. The second respondent did not take part in the High Court hearing. The court ordered the parties to submit a draft order and any written submissions on consequential matters within 14 days.

The appeal is dismissed. The court held that, read fairly as a whole, the inspector had complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and had given appropriate, limited weight to the environmental benefit of not requiring demolition because that argument could be repeated to undermine enforcement generally. The inspector's planning balance, including the conclusion that public benefits did not outweigh heritage harm, was a lawful planning judgment.