Planning permission for extension quashed

We were instructed to send a pre-action letter to East Cambridgeshire District Council setting out grounds for judicial review of their decision to grant planning permission for an extension at the rear of our client’s neighbour’s property. The Council consented to judgment to have the planning permission quashed, admitting legal errors.

Our pre-action letter set out various proposed grounds of challenge, including that the Council: (i) had made an error of fact in determining that the windows of the property would not lead to overlooking; (ii) had made an error of law in deciding that the windows of the property were ‘roof lights’ and therefore fell within permitted development under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2015; (iii) failed to take into account material considerations and the Claimant’s representations regarding overlooking in breach of a local plan policy which stated that developments will be expected to create “no significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers”; (iv) had acted irrationally in granting planning permission for opening windows at 1.4m above finished floor level concluding that there would be no harm to the residential amenity of neighbours having implied in the conditions to the planning permission that opening windows of less than 1.7m above floor level would be harmful to residential amenity; (v) had failed to give adequate reasons for the decision in relation to issues of overlooking and overshadowing that had been raised by our client; (iv) had failed to take into account material passages in the Local Plan and Design Guide which set out guidance as to the recommended separation distance between rear inter-visible windows, which the proposal clearly did not comply with.

The Council agreed to the quashing of the planning permission and to pay our client’s costs. In particular it accepted (i) that it had made errors of fact in finding that the windows of the proposed scheme would not create overlooking and were covered by the permitted development rules, (ii) that it failed to give adequate reasons for the proposed scheme and (iii) that it acted irrationally in concluding that the views created by the windows would not be harmful to residential amenity. A consent order was subsequently agreed, filed and sealed by the Court.