Residential Extension Quashed by Consent

We were instructed by a resident to provide advice in relation to a planning permission to add a second floor to a neighbor’s bungalow. The development was described in the following terms: “raising of roof height to create part two storey dwelling to form four bedroom house”. The decision has now been quashed by the High Court.

Once the application had been made public, our client submitted representations to the local planning authority, Wakefield Council. The comments raised several material planning considerations which the council had a duty to consider before arriving at its decision to grant consent. Our client addressed relevant provisions in the development plan relating to design and housing mix. Concerned that associated work to remove trees would have an impact on their amenity, our client raised the possibility that occupiers could look into their property from the new second floor. The representations also touched on how the development would affect the area’s character.

After the consultation ended the council published a report prepared by the planning officer responsible for making the decision. Officer’s reports are expected to set out the officer’s reasons for granting or refusing a given development. They are an important resource to understand how planning decisions are made. In this case, the officer noted that the local parish council had objected to the development. But other than that, it recorded that “No representations [were] received”.

It appeared on the face of it that our client’s representations had not been taken into account in the overall planning balance. Indeed, one of the development plan polices mentioned in our client’s objection had not been referred to in a list of polices in the report which the officer had considered. It was clear that, for whatever reason, our client’s representations had been overlooked.

We were therefore instructed to bring judicial review proceedings to have the decision quashed. We engaged in pre-action correspondence to highlight the oversight whereupon the council agreed that it had failed to take into material planning considerations. We, the council, and the applicant signed a ‘consent order’ agreeing to have the decision quashed by the High Court without a hearing, and also agreeing for the council to pay our client’s costs.