Permission was quashed due to unfairness of late written representation, says Court of Appeal

The late submission of an acoustic assessment by way of written representation meant that an interested party was denied the opportunity to respond to the evidence and the Court of Appeal quashed the planning permission.

Developer Taylor Wimpey appealed the London Borough of Greenwich's decision to refuse an application for planning permission for a residential development. The Council had agreed with a local residents' association that the development would cause noise and disturbance to local residents. 

On an appeal to the Secretary of State, the developer submitted expert evidence on the last day that written representations were allowed. The expert evidence argued that the proposed development would not generate detrimental noise transfer.

The Inspector allowed the developer's appeal and granted permission for the development. However, the residents argued that they were not given an opportunity to comment because the developer submitted the evidence on the closing date.

The written representations appeal procedure requires all applications and representations to be submitted in writing within a six week period. The Inspector then considers all documents, including representations from interested parties, received before the closing date.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the noise disturbance was not mentioned in the developer's appeal and that if it had been, the written representation procedure would not have been used. If expert evidence is expected, an appeal hearing should be conducted, the Judge said.

The resident's association "was not to blame" for failing to inspect evidence submitted on the last possible day, the Judge ruled. Because the residents had not been given the opportunity to respond, the appeal hearing was therefore "unfair and in breach of natural justice", he said.

The Judge also suggested that the general procedural guidance should be reviewed to prevent the same situation occuring again. An interested person should be able to make representations after the six-week period has ended, where appropriate, the Judge said.