Pincher leaves DLUHC

So Christopher Pincher joins the list of former Housing and Planning Ministers to bite the dust when he had hardly had time to warm the office chair with his posterior [1]. But then Housing and Planning are such unimportant subjects, so much less sexy than sorting out the chaos resulting from Brexit or cutting public services and benefits. After all, it’s not as if any significant legislation on Town and Country Planning is in the offing in the foreseeable future, so a tyro Housing and Planning Minister with no knowledge or experience in this area of policy (Stuart Andrew MP, previously a Deputy Whip) can be confident of a quiet snooze in his new post, er, can’t he?

Other ministers who have been shuffled out of their jobs today have moved straight to other ministerial posts, but at the time of writing, Pincher does not seem to have a new job. He was tipped to become Chief Whip, but that post has gone to Chris Heaton-Harris. [2]

[1] He had in fact been Housing Minister for 2 years; his role was redesignated in Septemebr 2021, which is the date of appointment that was shown on the Gov.UK website. So he turns out to have been 'long-serving' by ministerial standards!

[2] Pincher was in fact appointed as Deputy Chief Whip, after a delay of 5 hours, which led some political journalists to wonder why.

[Postscript (5 July 2022): On that final point, I think we now have an inkling of what may have occasioned that 5-hour delay in Pincher's appoointment as Deputy Chief Whip. What is surprising in retrospect is not that it was delayed (presumably due to certain misgivings in offcicial circles) but that it went ahead at all. In the event, his appointment didn't last very long.]

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Upward extensions – effect on amenity and external appearance

I am acutely aware that I have not posted on this blog since November. This is largely due to my current involvement in yet another writing project, of which more anon.

So to kick off anew, I am taking a quick look today at Cab Housing Ltd v SSLUHC [2022] EWHC 208 (Admin), heard jointly with two other challenges on the same points.

One of the matters requiring prior approval under Class AA in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO is the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises including overlooking, privacy and the loss of light. The claimants submitted that an LPA’s consideration of impact on amenity should be limited to effects on properties contiguous with, or abutting, the subject property and solely to those effects limited to overlooking, privacy and loss of light. The contention of the Secretary of State, in defending three appeal decisions by his Inspectors, was that this control embraces the impact upon all aspects of the amenity of neighbouring premises.

A second issue before the court was whether the LPA’s control of the external appearance of the subject dwelling is limited to the design and architectural features of its principal elevation and any side elevation fronting a highway, and whether it is further limited to the effects of those matters upon the subject dwelling itself. The claimants contended for the latter interpretation so that, in their submission, the authority is not allowed to consider the effects of external appearance upon any property outside the subject dwelling. The Secretary of State’s reply was that the control covers all aspects of the external appearance of the proposed development, and not simply the two elevations specifically referred to in paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(ii)), and also the impact upon other premises, and not simply the subject dwelling itself.

The issues in this case also affect the proper construction and ambit of permitted development rights granted by the 2015 GPDO under Classes ZA, A, AA, AB, AC and AD of Part 20. These provide for up to two storeys of multiple units of residential units to be erected on top of an existing purpose-built block of flats, or on top of detached or terraced buildings in commercial or mixed use or residential use. This issue may also impinge on Class A of Part 6, relating to the erection or extension of an agricultural building.

Holgate J set out a thorough and detailed analysis of these arguments, which (for the sake of brevity) I will refrain from rehearsing here. His conclusion was that the approach of the Inspectors to these issues was, as the Secretary of Stage had argued, a correct interpretation and application of the provisions of the GPDO. This interpretation was also consistent with the relevant provisions in the NPPF. So the decision of each Inspector was entirely lawful.

This judgement established the following points:

• In paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(i) of Part 1, “impact on amenity” is not limited to overlooking, privacy or loss of light. It means what it says.
• The phrase “adjoining premises” in that paragraph includes neighbouring premises and is not limited to premises contiguous with the subject property.
• In paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(ii) of Part 1, the “external appearance” of the dwelling house is not limited to its principal elevation and any side elevation fronting a highway, or to the design and architectural features of those elevations.
• Instead, the prior approval controls for Class AA of Part 1 include the “external appearance” of the dwelling house.
• The control of the external appearance of the dwelling house is not limited to impact on the subject property itself, but also includes impact on neighbouring premises and the locality.

© MARTIN H GOODALL