QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF WHITEKNIGHTS CONSULTANTS LIMITED | (CLAIMANT) | |
-v- | ||
THE FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE | (FIRST DEFENDANT) | |
BERWICK-UPON-TWEED BOROUGH COUNCIL | (SECOND 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 KOLINSKY (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANTS
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"In the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, within the area of Castle Terrace denoted on the Proposals Map, the sub-division of existing houses to provide additional self-contained residential accommodation, or the sub-division of garden ground to allow the construction of a new dwelling, will not be permitted."
"In order to sustain the availability of large detached and semi-detached houses set in substantial grounds, the Council has resisted the sub-division of existing houses and garden ground to provide additional residential development in the Castle Terrace area. It is intended to continue this Policy in order to maintain a stock of high quality housing consistent with Shelter Objectives . . . "
"Reason 1: 'The proposed development is contrary to Local Plan Policy S30, which does not permit the sub-division of garden ground within the area of Castle Terrace denoted on the Proposals Map, and would prejudice the availability of large detached houses set in substantial gardens within this area, to the detriment of Shelter Objectives 4,5,6 and 10 of the Local Plan, and would set an undesirable precedent for similar piecemeal development in this area.'
"Reason 2: 'The proposal represents an unacceptably cramped form of development, out of character with the existing pattern of development in the area, and would set an undesirable precedent for similar piecemeal development in this area.'"
"This policy states that the sub-division of garden ground to allow the construction of a new dwelling will not be permitted. The justification for this policy refers to the desire to sustain the availability of large detached and semi-detached houses set in substantial grounds in the Castle Terrace area."
"The national planning context is set by PPG3, which encourages local planning authorities to make more efficient use of urban land for housing. This planning guidance was published in March 2000, and thus post-dates the Local Plan, which was adopted in April 1999. The site itself was subdivided in 1994 and sold-off in the same year."
"5. Policy S30 is an adopted planning policy, and I am required to determine this appeal in accordance with that policy, unless there are material circumstances that justify going against it. The thrust of national advice is to make better use of land in built-up areas but that should not be seen as a recipe for building additional housing wherever there is space and regardless of the consequences.
"6. My assessment of the proposal is that the dwelling could be built without any significant adverse effect on the character or appearance of its immediate surroundings. It would be a substantial and well-designed dwelling in a large garden, even allowing for the fact that the garden is clearly only a part of the former very large garden of number 36. The new plot would be larger than the average plot size in Castle Terrace. The access could be created with minimal loss of roadside vegetation. None of the protected trees would be significantly affected.
"7. Although the local setting of the development is such that no serious harm would result from it, in terms of the visual character of its surroundings, I must have regard to the question of precedence, and the encouragement that could be given to others to propose further sub-divisions in Castle Terrace, should the appeal scheme go ahead. The appellants refer to a precedent having been established by approvals granted by the Council in previous years.
"8. From the list submitted, it is clear that several of the approvals were granted many years ago, and well before the current policy would have been effective. Only the development at the Lebanon Bible College is relatively recent, granted in 1998, and this appears from the Local Plan extract to be excluded from the policy area. There has been some loss of character over the years as additional houses have been permitted in Castle Terrace. The Local Plan policy establishes a base line for the future, to avoid further erosion of character, and it would not be appropriate to cross this line in my view without special justification.
"9. If I was to allow this appeal, it would stand as an example to others to try to cross the line on other plots, and the Council might have difficulty resisting such attempts. Because of this possibility, and because the proposal is so clearly in contravention of an adopted policy, I have come to the conclusion that it should not be permitted."
"It would be a substantial, and well-designed dwelling in a large garden, even allowing for the fact that the garden is clearly only a part of the former very large garden of number 36".
"The thrust of national advice is to make better use of land in built up areas but that should not be seen as a recipe for building additional housing wherever there is space and regardless of the consequences."
" . . . a base line for the future to avoid further erosion of character and it would not be appropriate to cross this line in my view without special justification".
" . . . would stand as an example to others to try to cross the line on other plots, and the Council might have difficulty resisting such attempts".
"The appellants have no idea at all what conclusion the inspector reached on their submission that policy S30 and its associated precedent argument does not apply. The inspector has provided no guidance on how he has dealt with that issue".