Procedural Unfairness in the removal of a Permitted Development Right: Singhal UK Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Another

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. 

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.

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. 

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. The Inspector acted unfairly in including the condition removing PD rights
2. The Inspector failed to take into account the NPPF
3. 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.

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 Jarman KC considered that had the parties had been given the opportunity, it may have impacted the justification for the condition. The court found that the threshold for procedural unfairness (requiring substantial prejudice to the Claimant) had been met.

Ground 2: Failure to Consider the NPPF

The court held that although the NPPF was not explicitly cited, the Inspector had applied relevant principles from the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), which interprets and clarifies the NPPF. 

Ground 3: Failure to consider Material Facts

Judge Jarman KC found that the Inspector was entitled to conclude that the outbuilding, taken as a whole, was not required for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse. The third space was not identified on the plan as being for a specific purpose which the Inspector found “suggested” that it was not required for that incidental use. The Inspector also had regard to authorities indicating that the size of the building is not itself determinative, which supported his reasoning.  

This case highlights that parties to an appeal should be provided with a chance to respond and make representations in respect of the removal of a PD right, to ensure that any conditions imposed are procedurally sound and transparently reasoned. 

The case supports existing authorities providing that the size of an outbuilding is not determinative when considering its incidental use, but rather this should be assessed as a matter of fact and degree. The case also highlights the importance of clearly defining the intended use of each space in planning applications and appeals.