|
|
 |
| |
PLANNERS HUMBLED BY JUDGE
Court throws out Greek brothers’ Heath house plans
THE Town Hall’s planning chiefs severely misinterpreted their own planning policy when they gave the go-ahead for a multi-million pound glass house on the edge of Hampstead Heath, a High Court judge ruled on Monday.
At a judicial review of the decision brought by the Heath and Hampstead Society against Camden Council, Mr Justice Sullivan ordered the quashing of an order last January giving brothers Alex and Thalis Vlachos permission to demolish the Garden House in the Vale of Health and build a larger one in its place.
The decision was a sensational victory for campaigners and neighbours of the Garden House who packed the courtroom at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand for the one-and-a-half day hearing.
They had argued consistently that Town Hall planners broke planning guidelines by allowing the replacement house on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) - the equivalent of a protected urban green belt. The bill for the case is now expected to cost Camden more than £35,000.
Martin Humphery, vice-president of the Heath and Hampstead Society hailed the decision as a “huge and principled victory for the Society and for the Heath”. Society chiefs had raised more than £35,000 in pledges from members to fund the battle.
He said: “Everything that the judge said today was said by us to the planning committee at the time but they showed a terrible combination of arrogance and ignorance by ignoring us. I hope now that they will listen to us rather more carefully the next time.”
The judicial review hinged on whether the new house proposed by the Vlachos brothers – and approved by Camden – was “materially larger” than the existing building.
Stringent planning guidelines in both the London Plan and the Council’s own unitary development plan (UDP) prohibit replacing a house on Metropolitan Open Land with one which is “materially larger”, in order to protect the “openness” of such land.
Peter Harrison QC, representing Camden Council, argued that planning chiefs were right to approve the proposal because the new house would be less visually obtrusive than the present building. His argument was supported by David Elvin QC, arguing for the Vlachos brothers, who added that there was no mathematical definition of “materially larger” in the guidelines.
But David Altaras, representing the Heath and Hampstead Society, said that the footprint of the new house was around two and half times larger than the existing Garden House, leaving no doubt that it was “materially larger”.
Agreeing with Mr Altaras, Mr Justice Sullivan said there was no doubt in his mind that the new house was “materially larger” than the existing building – and that Camden officers had been wrong to ignore this key question when they recommended the scheme for approval.
And he warned that the cumulative effect of approving such schemes would lead to the “death by a thousand cuts” of the underlying principle of Metropolitan Open Land.
He said: “One must not allow oneself to be distracted by whether the new building looks better or is cleverly designed. The first question is if the building is appropriate or inappropriate on the green belt. That is the primary question.
“You could have a dwelling that was larger but for all practical purposes inconspicuous. The question if not whether the replacement is more visually obtrusive but whether it would be materially larger. That is principally a question of actual size, rather than perceived size”.
Allowing an application to appeal the decision on the grounds of public importance by the Vlachos brothers, he added: “The applicant is entirely hopeless. I do not think there is any chance of success.”
A spokeswoman for Camden Council said that officers were “surprised and disappointed” by the High Court judgment.
She added: “Once we have received the full written judgment, we will look at the conclusions and assess the appropriate next steps in relation to the court’s decision and to the application, and any implications for our decision making processes.”
The Vlachos brother’s declined to comment. |
 |
|
|
|
