QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF CHARLES PAUL WILLIAMS||(CLAIMANT)|
|(1) THE FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE|
|(2) HAMBLETON DISTRICT COUNCIL||(DEFENDANTS)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MS S J DAVIES (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the FIRST DEFENDANT
THE SECOND DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
Crown Copyright ©
"The previous dwelling on the site was significantly smaller than that approved and now existing - having been a bungalow of fairly modest proportions, while the approved dwelling is of a much greater size, scale and form, including dormers. I understand that the approved dwelling is some 70% larger than that previously on the site. Allowing for full use of permitted development rights for extension of the former dwelling, the approved dwelling would still be significantly larger than that which could have been developed without the need for express planning permission."
Mr Williams submits, and indeed it is not disputed, that "70%" was an error. The true facts were that the new house was 57 per cent larger than the previous house. Allowing for permitted development rights, that 57 per cent was to be contrasted with a 34 per cent increase in volume which had been permitted.
"The claimant is correct in his contention that the figure should have read 57%. This was simply a typographical error on my part. I was aware that the correct figure was 57%. This was the figure given in paragraph 5.4 of the District Council's Committee Report, and was the figure I had in mind when reaching and writing my decision, and to which the comments in paragraph 7 of my decision letter relate. At no time was I under the impression that the approved dwelling was 70% larger than that previously on the site."
"I have had regard to all other matters raised, including the Appeal Decisions and other properties referred to, but none of them is sufficient to outweigh those that have led to my conclusion. I consider that the proposed extension, due to its location, size, scale, form and design would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the Special Landscape Area and the existing building. It would thus conflict with Policies H26, L2 and L9 of the adopted development plan, and with the Council's amended policy H26 originally prepared as part of the Alteration to the Local Plan."
Earlier in his appeal decision he had referred to policies, including policy L2, and at paragraph 4 he said:
"Policy L2 requires that development outside defined development limits should not have a significant impact on the open character and visual amenity of the countryside."