Appeal 6003552

The appeal is invalid and I am unable to proceed to consider the planning merits of the case.

The planning application has been made in full, with a site location plan identifying the application site and an adjoining area outlined in blue. The application site comprises the rear portion of the residential garden associated with [site address] and an access strip across the fronts of 41 and [address]. The red line enclosure terminates at a shared parking court for [address] properties.

Article 7 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 sets out the particulars that must accompany an application. This includes a requirement for a plan which identifies the land to which the application relates.

The Government provides advice on validity requirements in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). It explains that the submission of a valid application for planning permission requires, amongst other things, compliance with national information requirements. The PPG stipulates that: “The application site should be edged clearly with a red line on the location plan. It should include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development (e.g. land required for access to the site from a public highway, visibility splays, landscaping, car parking and open areas around buildings). A blue line should be drawn around any other land owned by the applicant, close to or adjoining the application site.”

The council has identified that the public highway ceases at the [address] entrance to the parking court. The parking court would need to be crossed to gain access to the red line site area. Therefore, the plan fails to identify all land necessary for access to the site from a public highway. The PPG stipulates that this is essential in order to meet national information requirements.

That the council did not require the red line to extend to the highway for initial validation is not determinative. S79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 empowers the Secretary of State to deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance. It follows that I must consider and reach a view on validity myself.

To accord with the PPG, the red line should extend to meet the public highway. The parking court is not owned by the council nor the appellant. As such, the appellant has not demonstrated that safe access from and to the public highway could be achieved to serve the proposed dwelling. In the absence of information regarding the ownership of the intervening land, the use of a negatively worded Grampian condition to secure access has not been demonstrated as meeting the tests of being reasonable or enforceable.

Consequently, the failure to comply with the PPG means that the application is invalid. As such, the appeal should not continue, and I am unable to consider the planning merits of the scheme.