Fenton v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and another

Claimant seeking planning permission for retention of basement to provide two-bedroom dwelling – Council refusing – Claimant appealing to Secretary of State – Inspector finding increase in size of property could affect residential amenity and character of area and dismissing appeal – Whether inspector’s conclusions reasonable – Whether lack of adequate reasons – Application dismissed The claimant applied to Mole Valley District Council ( the second defendants) for planning permission for the retention of a basement at Mickleham Hall Stables in order to provide a two-bedroom house. Planning permission already existed for a one-bedroom house on the appeal site, which was in a highly sensitive area in planning terms. Vehicular access to the site was by a private right of way, which, at one point, passed about a metre in front of Hall Farm. The council refused permission and the claimant appealed to the Secretary of State (the first defendant). In his decision letter, the inspector concluded that the additional size of a two-bedroom dwelling and the doubling of floor space would allow a more intensive use of the site and could create additional traffic, which would be to the detriment of Hall Farm. He also concluded that the additional traffic activity might alter the tranquil character of the area. He therefore dismissed the appeal. The claimant sought to quash that decision pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on the grounds, inter alia, that: (i) the inspector’s conclusions were Wednesbury unreasonable because no evidence was presented at the inquiry as to the difference, if any, in the level of traffic generated by a two-bedroom, as opposed to a one-bedroom, house; (ii) if the inspector’s conclusions were reasonable, his reasons were not proper, intelligible or adequate; and (iii) any lack of reasoning substantially prejudiced the claimant in deciding how to proceed in terms of any further applications that he might make. Held: The application was dismissed. Although the inspector’s decision was a particularly harsh one, the claimant had failed to show that it defied comprehension. It was not absurd to conclude that the additional size would allow for a more intensive use of the site, or that it could result in an increase in activity, leading to an increase in traffic. The inspector’s conclusions were within the scope of his planning judgment and could not be described as perverse. Further, his reasoning was perfectly adequate. He had taken the matter, step by step, through to a conclusion that the proposal might have affected the tranquility of the area. John Litton (instructed by Piper Smith & Basham, of Guildford) appeared for the claimant; Daniel Margolin (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants did not appear and were not represented. Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister