Historic inn preserved

The High Court has quashed a planning inspector’s decision that relied on the presence of mature trees that had already been felled where the presence of those trees had influenced the assessment of impact on the landscape and conservation area and whether the development was acceptable in planning terms. 

We represented Dr Rye, the claimant to a successful challenge to a planning inspector’s decision by way of statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, resulting in the quashing of planning permission granted on appeal by the inspector. That was a permission for development and the change of use of a historic pub, The Queens, Selborne.

The claimant’s ground of challenge was that the inspector in her decision made a material error of fact regarding the presence of trees on the site that had actually been felled. The inspector deemed the development acceptable in landscape and conservation terms due to the supposed presence of these trees but they were not there.

A decision can be rendered unlawful if it involves a material error of fact that is (among other things) objectively verifiable, not caused by the claimant, and materially relevant to the decision. The claimant had (in fact) diligently pointed out to the planning inspectorate that the developer’s application relied on an outdated Tree Protection Plan that did not account for the felled trees.

The SSLUHC had already conceded that their planning appeal decision was unlawful. The developer contested the claim at a substantive hearing, but the claim succeeded, and the planning permission was quashed.

Separately, the parties could not agree on costs, and the court was asked to issue a costs judgment. SSLUHC had agreed to pay a portion of our client’s costs as part of their decision to settle the claim. Our client sought to recover a portion of her total costs from the developer and resisted the developer’s offer of a significantly lower contribution than she deemed fair. The court largely agreed with the claimant ordering the developer to pay a substantial portion of her costs, including those incurred before SSLUHC consented to judgment.