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

The inspector dealt firstly with the appeal under ground (a) which is that planning permission ought to be granted for the matters stated in the notice. He set out the main issues at DL28 as follows:

“(i)

the effect of the appeal development on the character and appearance of the area, including the Headington Quarry Conservation Area; and

(ii)

if there is harm arising from the above effect of the appeal development, whether the harm is outweighed by public benefits to justify a grant of planning permission; and

(iii)

whether the appeal development provides adequate outdoor amenity space for occupants.”

The inspector at DL29-40 dealt with character and appearance, and concluded that the appeal development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the conservation area, to which harm he attached considerable importance and weight.

At DL41-46, public benefits were dealt with, including these paragraphs:

“43.

My attention has been drawn to the environmental benefit of not demolishing the appeal development, with disruption, pollution and a waste of resources and energy that demolition may entail. But this argument could be too easily repeated, to defeat the whole point of enforcement notices and encourage unauthorised development. So I give this argument limited weight in my decision.…

45.

Overall, as a matter of my planning judgement, the public benefits do not outweigh the heritage harm identified to justify a grant of planning permission.

46.

I conclude the appeal development, including the amended scheme, harms the character and appearance of the area, including the Headington Quarry 46. I conclude the appeal development, including the amended scheme, harms the character and appearance of the area, including the Headington Quarry Conservation Area and its significance. As such, in this regard, it does not comply with Policies DH1, DH2 or DH3 of the Local Plan or the historic environment policies of the Framework.”

His concluding paragraph under this ground, headed “Planning Balance” reads:

“59.

I have considered the benefits of the appeal development, set out elsewhere in this decision so I shall not repeat them here. But as a matter of my planning judgement, the benefits do not outweigh the harm to justify a grant of planning permission. So I consider that there is conflict with the development plan overall and the conditions suggested would not be able to mitigate the harm.”

It is not in dispute that in weighing up that balance the inspector did not have express regard to the PSED. The relevant protected characteristic is age. Nor did he have express regard to the best interests of the child being a primary consideration, pursuant to Article 3.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The inspector in his pre-inquiry note required answers to whether occupants of the appeal dwellings were served with a copy of the notice, and were notified of the appeal and the hearing. This brought forth letters from occupants one of which referred to the fact that they had a child since moving in. Given that the dwellings had only one bedroom, it is not surprising that there was no further evidence of children occupying them.

The inspector referred to children in dealing with the time for compliance with the notice, as follows:

“69.

The appellant seeks 18 months to comply with the notice to allow time for the tenants to find somewhere else to live and move out and to enable the owner to find funds to demolish the building.

70.

But from the evidence before me, all of the tenants are on relatively short term contracts and they moved into their current accommodation in full knowledge of the enforcement notice. According to the appellant, upholding the notice would probably bankrupt them. But no financial information was presented to support this view.

71.

However, I am sympathetic to the situation of occupants of the mews building, some of whom have children and/or have roles considered to be particularly important in the local community. Furthermore, the planning history clearly indicates that it is likely that an acceptable scheme for dwellings on the site of the mews building, could be developed, albeit at a reduced scale to that which has been built. With these points in mind, I shall exercise my discretion to allow more time for the notice to be complied with. This will allow the tenants more time to look for alternative accommodation and has the added benefit that it allows the appellant more time to progress an acceptable revised scheme.”

Although the inspector there referred to children, it was not in dispute before me that the letters from the occupants referred to only one small child occupying one of the appeal dwellings, as indicated above. Further evidence from the Appellant stated that there was at least one child.