Mitchell v Secretary of State for the Environment: CA 1995

The developer applied for planning permission to convert a building from use for multiple occupation by way of bedsitting rooms to a small number of self-contained flats. There was a draft development plan of the local planning authority which set out a policy to resist such changes of use, on grounds of the local need for affordable housing in the authority’s area. The authority refused permission for the development, relying on the policy in the draft plan as a material consideration. The developer appealed to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State dismissed the appeal and refused planning permission, treating the need for affordable housing as a material consideration as the authority had done. The developer challenged the Secretary of State’s decision, contending that the policy of the authority was not a material consideration, and was successful at first instance in having the decision quashed.
Held: The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal.
Saville LJ (with whom the other members of the court agreed) observed that the proposed change from multiple occupation to self-contained flats was a change in the character of the use of the land within the guidance given by Lord Scarman in Westminster. He held that the need for affordable housing in a particular area was a relevant policy consideration which justified the Secretary of State in deciding to refuse to grant permission for the development in question.
Balcombe LJ gave a short concurring judgment, referring to planning policy guidance regarding the desirability of provision of affordable housing.

Judges:

Balcombe LJ , Saville LJ

Citations:

(1995) 69 P and CR 60

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWright, Regina (on The Application of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Another SC 20-Nov-2019
W challenged the grant of planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to allow erection of a wind turbine, saying that the authority had taken into account a promise by the land owner to run the scheme as a community development . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.677032