Appeal 6004567

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

The local planning authority (LPA) refused planning permission for one reason, relating to the effect of the proposed extensions and alterations on the character and appearance of the area. However, the outcome of the appeal rests on a procedural matter identified while the appeal was in progress. That is, whether a valid planning application was made, taking into account the omission of any drawing showing the existing and proposed west side elevation.

At my request, both main parties have clarified the drawings which were submitted to the LPA. They have also had the opportunity to comment on whether the application was valid, based on those drawings, while being alerted on a without prejudice basis that this could affect the outcome of the appeal. I have had regard to all responses received when reaching the above decision.

Article 7(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (DMPO) sets out the particulars that must accompany a valid application for planning permission. Amongst other things, it requires that a planning application must be accompanied by a plan which identifies the land to which the application relates and any other plans, drawings and information necessary to describe the development which is the subject of the application (Article 7(1)(c), emphasis added).

Section 327A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) states amongst other things that the LPA must not entertain an application if it fails to comply with applicable requirements as to its form or content.

The planning application was accompanied by four drawings, as follows: • WBDS-000211/001 [name]: Existing Plan & Elevations • WBDS-000211/002 [name]: Proposed Plan & Elevations • WBDS-000211/002 [name]: Existing and [address] Scene • WBDS-000211/004 [name]: Site Plan

The drawings identify the land to which the application relates and include various larger scale drawings which purport to show the dwelling as existing and as proposed. The ‘proposed’ drawings include plans of the layout of each floor, and at roof level, along with a cross-section. Front, rear and side elevations are also included, but the side elevation only details one side of the dwelling, facing east. No west side elevation is included.

In response to my request for clarification, both main parties have confirmed that the above is a full and complete list of the drawings submitted to the LPA. Written confirmation has also been provided on behalf of the appellant that no drawing of the existing or proposed west side elevation was submitted to the LPA as part of the original application.

The LPA did validate the planning application, and it was subject to the required consultation processes. The LPA’s decision-making process continued to its conclusion and this appeal was also accepted as valid when initially submitted.

Nevertheless, s79(1) of the TCPA empowers an Inspector, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to deal with the application as if it had been made to them in the first instance. Furthermore, s79(6) provides that if, before or during the determination of an appeal, the Inspector forms the opinion that planning permission could not have been granted by the local planning authority, they may decline to determine the appeal or to proceed with the determination. The fact that the LPA validated the application and issued a decision notice does not prevent those provisions of the TCPA from being exercised. The courts have also concluded that an invalid planning application cannot be the foundation for any jurisdiction in an appeal1.

From the submitted drawings, the footprint and overall extent of the proposed extensions, including the new roof form and dormer windows, can broadly be understood. However, the appearance of the west elevation is not described. It is, however, evident from the other drawings that it would differ in several respects from the east elevation.

The proposed first floor plan indicates windows on the west side, which would extend beyond the existing structure, and would light reconfigured staircases to the first floor and converted roofspace. Those openings would be significantly wider and of a different layout to those shown on the proposed east side elevation. However, their overall size and shape, and how they would sit on the west elevation, cannot be deduced. The ground floor plans show that an existing single storey garage at the front/side of the dwelling would be retained and converted to a living room, but there is no drawing which shows the form or appearance of that single storey element from the side or how it would integrate with the first floor extension and new side-facing windows above. A different arrangement of rooflights is proposed on each side of the roof. 1 Geall v SSE [1997] 78 P. & [name]. 264.

Taking account of these differences between the proposed east and west elevations, I am not satisfied that the application met the requirement in the DMPO to provide plans, drawings and information necessary to describe the development which is the subject of the application. The east elevation drawings do not accurately describe the west elevation. Therefore, any planning permission granted would be inherently ambiguous, since there would be no record of the approved size, shape and position of all the side-facing windows, or the form and detailing of the single storey element.

Furthermore, although occupiers of neighbouring properties were notified and given the opportunity to comment on the planning application, they have not had an adequate opportunity to understand the proposal in full. In particular, the appearance of the proposed extensions and alterations from the adjacent property on the west side has not been clearly described. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the LPA felt able to reach a decision to refuse planning permission, the omitted details have ongoing and adverse consequences for the fairness of the decision-making process as a whole.

In conclusion, based on the information submitted with the planning application and during the course of this appeal, the drawings and other information provided do not adequately describe the development which is the subject of the application. Consequently, the application was invalid as it did not meet the requirements in Article 7(1) of the DMPO. For that reason, the appeal should not continue, and I am unable to consider the planning merits of the case.