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

Turning to ground 2, Mr Feeney submits that by referring in DL43 to the encouragement of unauthorized development, the inspector took into account an immaterial consideration. What may or may not happen elsewhere is not relevant to what should happen on the appeal site.

In my judgment, three important points emerge from that paragraph. The first is that the inspector accepted this as a benefit of not requiring demolition. Second, he attached weight to this in the planning balance, albeit a limited one. Third, the reference to unauthorised development went to the weight to be attached to this material consideration. Sensibly, this must be included in the benefits referred to in DL59, as he attached some weight to it. It is clear in that paragraph that he carried out the required balancing exercise and came to the conclusion that the benefits did not outweigh the identified harm. That was a conclusion to which he was entitled to come.

There was some discussion before me as to authorities on precedent, but in the end, as I understood it, the parties agreed that these were not relevant. In my judgment, when the DL is read fairly as a whole, the inspector’s approach to the planning balance was a proper one. Ground 2 also fails.