Council seeks Judicial Review against Planning Application 21/2389/FH

Folkestone & Hythe District Council is seeking a judicial review of a Planning Inspector’s decision, made on the 6 August 2024. This decision relates to planning application 21/2389/FH – The Old Laundry, rear of 20 Darlinghurst Road Cheriton, which was refused. The site currently looks like this.

The application seeks permission for the demolition and replacement of the existing building on site to provide three one-bedroom flats over two storeys. Nine neighbours were consulted. Five objections were received and 1 comment was submitted by Vice Chair of the New Folkestone Society, Mark Hourahane.

The dispute is about  Local_Plan Policies HB1 & HB3, which are Quality Places Through Design, and Internal and External Space Standards.

The Application form was made on the 29/11/2021. It was received by the Council on 30/11/2021, and valid on the 08/12/2021, according to the Council’s planning portal. However, the one comment made by Vice Chair of the New Folkestone Society, Mark Hourahane (pictured) on the 7/01/22, asks the following, and more:

“Where is the application form?”

“How are we supposed to understand the application without access to the application form?” 

Why is it so many validation errors keep happening?

The Officers Report to refuse, was recommended on the 20/10/23, the applicant appealed the case to the Planning Inspectorate and the process began in May 2024.

This appeal related to the proposed redevelopment of this site to provide 3 one bedroomed flats. Planning permission was refused on the basis of poor internal and external amenity space. [HB3]

In allowing the appeal, the [Planning] Inspector gave little weight to whether or not the flats met the minimum standard for floor space, attributed arguments to the Council that were not made, and stridently criticised the Council for failing to justify its decision making both during the course of the application and in refusing planning permission.

In the Planning Inspectors Appeal decision handed down on the 6 Aug 2024, one notes at Para 11, 

I do not consider that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of future occupiers. It would not therefore conflict with LP Policies HB1 and HB3 insofar as they seek a good level of internal and external amenity.

The Inspector goes on:

The concerns raised in relation to the balconies were not however supported by the wording of Policy HB3 and could be seen as amounting to unreasonable behaviour.

And at Para 16 they state:

I consider the complete absence of any kind of balancing exercise within the Council’s officer report to be concerning. There was simply no acknowledgement of the benefits of the scheme which included

1) the redevelopment of a sustainable, brownfield site,

2) a significant enhancement to the Bowen Road street scene through the
removal of an unsightly and dilapidated building, and

3) the provision of three new homes against the backdrop of a national housing crisis. On any fairminded analysis, these benefits clearly outweigh the harms identified by the Council and should have led to the approval of the scheme.

The Council were not happy with the reasoning of the Planning Inspector’s decision. There next step was to seek legal advice on the basis of the reasoning set out in the Inspector’s decision. The legal advice they received concluded that the Inspector had erred in law and that, notwithstanding this, it was evident that the Inspector had not fully read or appreciated the Council’s appeal statement, nor the comments of consultees in relation to the application the subject of the appeal.

Mr Hourahane comments, mentioned early, also say:

My comments also mention the fact that the dwellings appear to be in violation of Policy HB3 in terms of size (the illustrations suggest single-bed dwellings for two occupants, which I make less than 50 square metres from the plans) and lack of outdoor space. I feel the building would be better suited as a single dwelling with off-road parking, as the road is fairly narrow and the property is situated close to a tight and blind bend.  

Having regard to the legal advice received, the Council is now seeking a judicial review of the Inspectors decision and it’s clear that Local Plan Policies, HB1 and HB3, will be a bone of contention. The matter is therefore before the Planning Court

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime