Jackson v Secretary of State for the Environment and others

Council refusing planning permission – Inspector allowing appeal – Applicant claiming sunlight and views of small room in next door property would be obstructed – Whether small room a habitable room – Application for inspector’s decision to be quashed allowed The applicant lived at 66 and 68 Macclesfield Old Road, Buxton, in two semi-detached houses. To the east and west of the houses lay a special landscape area with distant views of the Peak District National Park. In the north-eastern corner of the houses was a small room, which had a window facing north, and three windows facing east with views of the Peak District. The third respondent applied for planning permission in relation to a narrow strip of land on the eastern side of the houses. The application was for a dwelling-house which would lie at a distance of 8.7m and obstruct part of the view, and some of the sunlight, from the windows of the small room. High Peak Borough Council, the second respondents, refused the application. The third respondent appealed. The inspector held an informal hearing and allowed the appeal granting planning permission. He found that the small room was not a habitable room, applying the building regulations which determined a habitable room as “a room used for dwelling purposes but not a kitchen”. The applicant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the inspector’s decision. It was contended that the inspector could not reasonably have come to the conclusion that the proposed house would not: (1) significantly detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and (2) significantly detract from the quality of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers as a result of loss of privacy, loss of sunlight and daylight or visual impact. It was further submitted that since the applicant spent a substantial amount of time in the room and it had not been used as a kitchen for many years, the inspector had improperly treated the small room as if it were not a habitable room. Held The application was allowed. The small room was plainly a room where the applicant spent a considerable amount of time, as it had the best views, and, on the evidence, his conclusion that the small room was not a habitable room, and thus that the living conditions of the room, including the view, would not be significantly reduced by the development, had been Wednesbury unreasonable. Accordingly, it was appropriate to exercise the court’s discretion to quash the inspector’s decision since, if the case had been considered with proper regard paid to the fact that the small room was a habitable room, a different conclusion would have been reached. Christopher Mills (instructed by Smith Forts, of Stockport) appeared for the applicant; Jonathan Karas (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondents, High Peak Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.