AC-2025-LON-000362 - [2025] EWHC 1968 (Admin)

Mr Feeney for the Appellant accepts that the decision letter must be construed as a whole, and accepts that the inspector complied with the PSED when considering whether to extend time for compliance, but submits that it was a material consideration in the planning balance whether to grant planning permission and there is no indication that that material consideration was taken into account in that exercise.

In my judgment it is highly unlikely that the inspector had proper regard when deciding whether to extend time, but did not do so when deciding whether or not to grant planning permission. The context in which he was making both parts of the decision includes those matters set out in DL70 but also that the dwellings were all one-bedroom dwellings and not family dwellings. In my judgment, within that context there is sufficient indication that he had proper regard so as to comply with the PSED when considering the planning balance, when the DL is read fairly as a whole. Moreover, again within that context, by asking for details about occupants’ awareness of the notice and the appeal, he made sufficient inquiry.

In my judgment, similar considerations apply to the best interest of the child being a (not the) primary consideration under Article 3.1 of UNCRC. Ground 1 fails.