Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more


  • Comment
A resident of Pinner, Middlesex yesterday failed in a high court move to block his neighbours' plans for an extensi...
A resident of Pinner, Middlesex yesterday failed in a high court move to block his neighbours' plans for an extension and has been ordered to pay local council legal costs of£10,985 run up in the case.

Dennis Carlton-Conway of Pinner Hill had challenged the Harrow LBC's decision to give planning permission to his neighbours, Mr and Mrs Al-Bustani, also on Southacre Way.

Dismissing the Mr Carlton-Conway's claim, Mr justice Stanley Burnton said he was satisfied that the council's chief planning officer, Graham Jones, had the authority to grant the planning consent under challenge.

Mr Carlton-Conway had claimed that the extension proposal conflicted with a local planning policy that required some planning applications to be dealt with by a full planning committee, rather than by the chief planning officer acting under his delegated powers to determine proposals on his own.

He had sought to have the council's approval for the planned extension quashed, and reconsidered by a full planning committee.

He claimed that Southacre Way was a modest three house development, on land adjacent to green belt land and described as an area of special character and a conservation area and argued that the planned extension conflicted with planning policy under the local Unitary Development Plan, and with the council's own guidelines.

He claimed that in the circumstances consent could only be given by the members of the council's appropriate planning committee and that the planning officer had exceeded his powers in granting consent.

His challenge centred on claims that the extension in question was a two-storey extension and that such developments could not be decided by the planning officer alone.

However, dismissing the challenge and making the costs order the judge said that in his judgment the planning officer was entitled reasonably to conclude that the proposed extension was not a two storey extension within the meaning of the council's Guidelines on House Extensions.

He continued: 'It follows that Mr Jones (the planning officer) had authority to grant the planning permission in this case.


  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.