Appeal 6004525

I decline to determine the appeal and propose to take no further action.

Regulation 7 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (the Order) requires that an application for planning permission be accompanied by plans, drawings and information necessary to describe the development which is the subject of the application. Section 327A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) requires the local planning authority not to entertain an application if it fails to comply with any requirement of the Act, or any provision made under it, as to the form or manner in which the application must be made.

Section 79(1) of the Act allows the Secretary of State to deal with an appeal as if it had been made to him in the first instance. Section 79(6) of the Act provides that if, before or during the determination of an appeal, the Secretary of State forms the opinion that planning permission for that development could not have been granted by the local planning authority, he may decline to determine the appeal.

The Council’s decision notice referred to plan references 23.225.PL.001, 23.225.PL.002, 23.225.PL.003, 23.225.PL.004, 23.225.PL.009 - REV00, 23.225.PL.009 REV04 and 23.225.PL.010. These plan references relate to the ground floor plan, first floor plan, second floor plan, third floor plan, landscape plans and a block plan respectively. No elevations were listed on the decision notice. Further references on the decision notice related to technical reports.

Additional plans not referenced in the Council’s decision were also included with the appeal. This included plan 23.225.PL.004 REV00, titled loft floor plan, which is an alternate version of the third floor plan listed on the decision notice. Plan 23.225.PL.006 REV00 showing elevations (in black and white and coloured versions) were further provided with the appeal. However, these elevations do not match the floor plans – particularly insofar as this relates to the uppermost floor and roof form.

As a consequence, it is not possible to determine what permission is being sought for as there are no elevations listed in the Council’s decision notice. Even if I were to accept the additional elevations and alternate loft floor plan provided with the appeal; it would still not be clear as to what permission was being sought for. This is because the floor plans and elevations do not match.

Moreover, accepting these amended plans would mean that there would be a change, or potential change to what permission is being sought for, and this would amount to a substantial difference and/or fundamental change to the nature of the appeal resulting in procedural unfairness to one or more parties. This approach follows the principles set out in established case law1.

Whilst these inaccuracies, in and of themselves, are sufficient for me to conclude that the appeal cannot be determined – it is especially pertinent here as reasons one and two of the Council’s decision relate to the character and appearance of the area and neighbours living conditions. In this circumstance it is essential for the plans and elevations to be clear so a fair assessment of the merits of the case can be made in relation to these aspects.

In essence, the extent of remediation required to make the appeal valid exceeds that which is prescribed under the Act and the Order and goes well beyond that which is set out in the Procedural Guide2. I am therefore unable to determine the appeal and it is not necessary for me to explore the planning merits of the proposal further.

For the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal to be invalid. The lack of clarity with regard to the plans and elevations of the current submission are not readily capable of any reasonable remedy. I am therefore not in a position to progress matters and cannot consider the planning merits of the case. Accordingly, I must decline to determine the appeal and propose to take no further action.