Expert Witness Journal Issue 63 October 2025 - Flipbook - Page 108
Procedural Unfairness in the removal
of a Permitted Development Right:
Singhal UK Limited v Secretary of
State for Housing, Communities and
Local Government & Another
by Anna Tranter - anna.tranter@irwinmitchell.com
The recent Planning Court judgment of Singhal UK
Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities
and Local Government and Anor Communities &
Anor [2025] EWHC 1967 (Admin) found that the
threshold for procedural unfairness can be met
where a decision departs from an agreed matter
between the parties, where the parties did not have
the opportunity to make representations on that
point.
The Claimant argued that this condition would
prevent the erection of an outbuilding “required
for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the
dwellinghouse” which would otherwise constitute
permitted development (“PD”) under the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
(England) Order 2015.
The statutory review was brought on three grounds:
1.
This case centred around the statutory review under
sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 of a Planning Inspectorate appeal
decision dated 5 May 2023. That appeal was brought
by the Claimant against an enforcement notice
issued by the London Borough of Hounslow, alleging
a breach of planning control at a property owned by
the Claimant. The breach involved the construction
of a residential outbuilding (sub-divided into three
spaces), a single-storey rear extension and link
extension.
2.
3.
Ground 1: Procedural Unfairness
The claim succeeded on Ground 1 alone. That the
Inspector did not think he had the power to remove
PD rights in this case had been an agreed matter
between the parties to the appeal. Departing from
this position by imposing the condition deprived
the parties of the chance to address this issue. Judge
The appeal had partially succeeded with permission
granted for a single storey rear extension, subject
to a condition that no building or enclosure could
be erected or installed within the dwellinghouse’s
curtilage without prior written notice.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
The Inspector acted unfairly in including the
condition removing PD rights
The Inspector failed to take into account
the NPPF
The Inspector failed to take into account
material considerations in deciding that one
of the three rooms in the outbuilding would
not be required for a purpose incidental to the
enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.
106
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2025
