QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF GEOFFREY ROSS HOLDING||(CLAIMANT)|
|FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE||(DEFENDANT)|
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)
MR PALMER (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor, London, SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Crown Copyright ©
"The appeal site is also significantly smaller than the plots associated with the main building and the neighbouring dwellings."
It is submitted that there was no evidence before the Inspector upon which he could properly arrive at that conclusion and, secondly, that there was procedural unfairness in that he failed to give any warning that he was minded to make a decision based on the relative size of the appeal property compared with neighbouring properties or the relative plot size of the appeal property and neighbouring properties.
"The first is whether the proposed development would be acceptable having regard to the development plan policies for protection of the countryside. The second is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area."
"The proposal would change the use of the existing annexe to a separate dwelling in its own right. The appellants state that they wish to make good use of the building which is now no longer needed for its original purpose."
"The appellants state that the proposal would not affect the privacy of neighbours, or the noise generated. The site is well landscaped and would not change, and there has been no highway objection to the proposal. The Council do not object in these respects and I can find no reason to do so."
Whereas at paragraph 18 the Inspector found:
"I conclude on this issue, therefore, that the proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area."
".... the impact a separate dwelling house would have on the character of the area".
"The appeal site is also significantly smaller than the plots associated with the main building and neighbouring dwellings",
was fair as regards Birchwood House and Oakwood. It was incorrect so far as Birchwood Cottages were concerned. But it has to be said that that was due, at least in part, to the fact that on the map annexed to the application, Birchwood Cottages were shown as a separate entity, not divided into two as was in fact the case.