Heath & Hampstead Society, R (on the application of) v Vlachos & Ors

Heath & Hampstead Society, R (on the application of) v Vlachos & Ors

The words 'materially larger' in the relevant planning policy require a primarily objective comparison of the size of the existing and proposed buildings. The council misapplied the policy by treating the test as a broader planning judgment rather than a size-based assessment. A replacement building more than twice the size of the original cannot reasonably be considered 'not materially larger.'

Parties
Respondent: Heath & Hampstead Society; First Appellant: Alex Vlachos; Second Appellant: Thalis Vlachos; Third Appellant: London Borough of Camden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Administrative Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Policy, Metropolitan Open Land (mol), Green Belt Policy, Appropriate Development, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Planning Policy Metropolitan Open Land (mol) Green Belt Policy Appropriate Development Judicial Review of Planning Decisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heath & Hampstead Society

Respondent

Alex Vlachos

First Appellant

Thalis Vlachos

Second Appellant

London Borough of Camden

Third Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Administrative Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the test for 'materially larger' in MOL/Green Belt policy is a question of size alone or includes broader planning judgment
  2. 2 Whether Camden Council misapplied the 'materially larger' test in granting planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The words 'materially larger' in the relevant planning policy require a primarily objective comparison of the size of the existing and proposed buildings. The council misapplied the policy by treating the test as a broader planning judgment rather than a size-based assessment. A replacement building more than twice the size of the original cannot reasonably be considered 'not materially larger.'

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Sullivan J quashing the planning permission is upheld