"9. I hereby allow this appeal and grant planning permission for the use of the 2-storey extension to No 1 Birfed Crescent, Kirkstall, Leeds, LS4 2QF, as a separate 2-bedroom dwelling, in accordance with the application (Ref: P/07/04861/FU) dated13 July 2007 and the plans submitted therewith, subject to the following condition: Within one month of the date of this decision, a fresh car parking scheme shall be submitted to the local planning authority, for their approval. The scheme shall make provision for three parking spaces in a defined area at the front of the site. The parking spaces shall be marked out within one month of the scheme’s approval. Thereafter the parking spaces shall be permanently retained for use by the occupants of Nos 1 and 1A Birfed Crescent, and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles." 1. The background to the application is set out in paragraph 2 of the decision letter: "
"(i) The local planning authority considers that the proposal fails to provide an adequate level of private amenity space for the occupiers of both 1 and 1A Birfed Crescent in terms of the size and possible use of the spaces given their topography and relationships to the dwellings. The inadequacy of private space provision together with the arrangement of the side and rear access and parking will result in poor levels of amenity for the occupiers of both dwellings but particularly occupants of 1A. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy GP5 of the adopted UDP (Review 2006) and to guidance contained within Supplementary Planning Guidance Neighbourhood for Living. (ii) The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal would result in an unworkable arrangement to provide off-street parking as a result of the narrow width of the side access, its gradient and the difficulty of turning vehicles within the site. Overall therefore it is not considered that a satisfactory arrangement has been shown as to how adequate provision can be made for parking for two dwellings close to the junction with the A65 and the proposal will therefore have a detrimental impact on highway safety and be contrary to policies T2 and T24 of the adopted UDP (Review 2006)." 1. In its case before the Inspector, the Council summarised the relevant policy background so far as concerned Policy GP5 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance as follows: "2.4. Policy GP5 of the UDP states that development proposals should resolve detailed planning considerations (including access, drainage, contamination, stability, landscaping and design). Proposals should seek to avoid problems of environmental intrusion, loss of amenity, pollution, danger to health or life, and to promote energy conservation and the prevention of crime. 2.5. Supplementary Planning Guidance Neighbourhoods for Living - A Guide for Residential Design in Leeds was formally adopted in December 2003 following public consultation and can also therefore be given considerable weight. The sections which relate to this appeal are: a. Private amenity space Private gardens for family homes should have a minimum area of 2/3 of total gross floor area of the dwelling excluding vehicular provision. b. Designing for parking Car parking for developments should be useable, safe and secure for both people and vehicles." 1. Mr Honey, for the Secretary of State, accepts that Policy GP5 provided the relevant policy framework for account to be taken of the detrimental impact in terms of amenity for number 1A inherent in the odd arrangement to the rear of the property and the substantial distance between number 1A and its garden area. He points out that, so far as concerns the Supplementary Planning Guidance in relation to private amenity space, the only aspect of the guidance highlighted by the Council as relevant to the appeal was that dealing with the minimum area for private gardens and family homes. 1. In light of Mr Honey's acceptance that the odd layout at the rear of the property gave rise to significant amenity issues falling within Policy GP5 so far as number 1A and its garden were concerned, this latter point is not a significant matter in the context of this judgment. However, it may be noted that the Supplementary Planning Guidance states that its key objective is "to provide well designed private and semi-private space for all dwellings ..." and, in the body of the guidance, it deals with "overall quality" of provision of private open space and the issue of the "usability" of such space. In my view, therefore, the Supplementary Planning Guidance was also relevant to the amenity issues regarding the layout of the garden for number 1A, even though not specifically identified as so relevant by the Council in its written submissions to the Inspector. 1. In those written submissions, the Council stated its case on the amenity issues as follows: "6.2. Impact on amenity The adverse impact of the proposal is considered to be two-fold with regard to amenity. The general layout of the site is considered contrived for both the dwelling houses with turning heads, parking spaces and amenity space fitted in around this. 1 Birfed Crescent's amenity space has been reduced significantly in size. The approximate gross floor area for 1 Birfed Crescent is 94sqm, the proposed amenity space is approximately 42sq m, well below the guidance level in Supplementary Planning Guidance - 'Neighbourhoods for Living', which is considered an unacceptable level for the amenity of occupiers. The amenity space to 1A is split into two areas, one is located immediately to the rear of the dwelling which comprises a patio area and a small garden area. The second garden area and the largest in size of the two is located at the rear of the site in the right-hand corner. This general layout, the separation of amenity areas to one house is unusual and not appropriate to the amenity of future occupiers. 1A Birfed Crescent has approximate gross floor area of 38sqm and the two areas of amenity space proposed together are 71sqm in total, admittedly in excess of the guidance. However the amenity space to the rear as stated is the largest of the two spaces and is a good distance away from the main house and it is considered that the space would not be used. The amenity space immediately to the rear of the site of 1A is considered, due to its size, topography and location adjacent to the access road and driveway to the main parking area for the site to be too small for the dwelling house and would be detrimental to the amenity of the occupiers. In addition the turning head and parking spaces surround all the amenity spaces. This adds to the adverse impact upon the amenity of all future occupiers, potentially 24 hours a day, and is considered even more significant on 1A than 1. Additionally, concern is raised that if the appeal is allowed that in time, the amenity space to the rear of the site for 1A will not be retained for intended use. Overall it is considered that the general layout, size, topography and location of the amenity spaces are detrimental to the amenity of future occupiers of the site, contrary to Leeds UDP policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance.” 1. The Council also addressed the issue of the impact of the parking arrangements shown in the application plan upon the local highway network. In particular, the Council stated: "6.3 Impact on highway network The access, driveway and parking spaces are considered unworkable and once again contrived for two dwelling houses, taking into account the narrow access, the narrow driveway along the boundary wall, the gradient change and the amount of hard-surfacing just to facilitate 3 parking spaces to the rear. At the side of the two-storey extension the narrowest part of the gap is 2m, well below the standard width requirements: a minimum requirement is 2.6m generally, 3m preferably as this would allow access to both sides of the vehicle. The applicant has stated in point 4 of their grounds of appeal that 'most' vehicles can access the site at the narrowest point. This is not considered appropriate as it should be accessible to all. It is considered that the narrowness of the access will deter vehicles from using the parking to the rear of the site where the main parking area is located and to park on the road which is not considered acceptable would be detrimental to highway safety, especially in such close proximity to the junction with the A65. The parking layout to the rear of the site is not considered workable due to lack of aisle depth and turning area. The difference in levels from the front of the site to the rear is significant and it is considered that it is not possible to achieve an acceptable gradient for its use. Additionally, concern relating to the site layout; indicating that the boundary wall is to be realigned to accommodate a wider access; this would mean encroaching onto the adjacent highway verge which is considered unacceptable. Overall it is considered that the access, driveway, turning head and parking areas are not acceptable or workable and have an adverse impact upon highway safety." 1. The Council's submissions concluded: "8.1 It is considered that overall, taking into account the contrived layout of the site which is dominated by hard-surfacing to facilitate the parking requirements for the two single family dwelling houses and a turning head, that the amenity space with regard to its location is disjointed, especially in relation to the dwelling house, specifically in the case of 1A Birfed Crescent, adversely affecting the amenity of the dwelling houses. 8.2 In addition, the access to the side of 1A is very narrow and unlikely to be used. This will result in the hard-surfaced parking area to the rear being unusable, resulting in on-street parking, detrimental to highway safety. 8.3 The Inspector is therefore respectfully asked to dismiss the appeal." 1. At the end of its written submissions, the Council proposed certain conditions if (contrary to its primary case) the Inspector was minded to allow the appeal: "1. Within one month of the date of decision, details of car parking layout shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and implemented and retained thereafter. In the interest of highway safety 2. Within one month of the date of decision, details of the position, design, materials and type of all walls and/or fences or boundary treatments, whether or not shown to be erected on the approved plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and shall be retained as approved. In the interests of amenity and visual amenity 3. Notwithstanding the provision of theTown and Country Planning (General Permitting Development) Order 1995 (or any orders revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) planning permission shall be obtained before any insertions of windows, garages, extensions or conservatories are erected. As the local planning authority wish to keep control over alterations and extensions to the buildings." 1. It was clear from the Council's submissions that a major part of its case related to the contrived layout of the rear of the site, and in particular the disjointed nature of the garden arrangement for number 1A which affected its amenity. 1. The Council also put in submissions in its capacity as Highway Authority. These repeated the point about the difficulty of access for cars to the rear of the property, and the likely detrimental impact upon the local highway system. Those submissions concluded with the following note: "
"I consider the main issues in this case to be first, the adequacy of the proposed car parking arrangements; and second the adequacy of the provision of outdoor amenity space." 1. He dealt with the issue of parking at paragraphs 3 and 4 of the decision letter: "3. The application plan shows three parking spaces at the rear of the extended building. Access to these would be by means of a driveway with a steep gradient. The driveway passes between the southern flank of the extended building and a wall that separates the appeal site from Kirkstall Road (A65). It has a minimum width of about two metres. It seems to me that many family cars would be too wide to use this access. Policy T2 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (UDP) requires that new development should make adequate provision for easy, safe and secure parking. In my view, off-street parking provision would be necessary to serve Nos 1 and 1A Birfed Crescent. This street has a relatively narrow carriageway, and kerbside parking in such close proximity to its junction with the A65 would give rise to a traffic hazard. 4. However, the area in front of the extension has now been surfaced, and could accommodate at least 3 parked cars. I understand that, in accordance with the UDP guidelines, two parking spaces would be required for the original house and one parking space would be required for the new 2-bedroom dwelling. It seems to me that this requirement could be met by utilising the area in front of the extension. I note that such an arrangement would be acceptable to the highway authority. However, it would be necessary to impose a condition to ensure that the parking spaces would be provided for these two dwellings in perpetuity. Subject to the imposition of such a condition, I consider that the parking requirements of the UDP could be satisfied." 1. Two points should be made on those paragraphs. First, the Inspector did not conclude that use of the rear of the property by any cars in accordance with the layout shown on the application plan would be impossible. Indeed, given that the applicants for planning permission had actually laid out the property at the rear with car parking spaces and had maintained that “most” vehicles could gain access to that space, it appears that active use was being made of the car park areas to the rear of the property. The Inspector simply concluded that many family cars would be unable to make use of the access. So the factual position on the case presented and the Inspector's findings was that some but not all cars would make use of the car parking areas at the rear of the property. 1. Secondly, the Inspector himself considered that it was necessary to impose a condition to require use of the front area of the property as car parking spaces. The condition was formally set out in paragraph 9 of the decision letter. That was not a condition which the applicant for permission or the Council had proposed. The Inspector did not adopt any of the conditions proposed by the Council. On the basis of the condition devised by the Inspector, the highways objection to the application fell away. There is no appeal against that part of the decision. 1. The Inspector then dealt with the question of the amenity objections by the Council under the heading "
"5. Supplementary Planning Guidance issued by the Council indicates that each family house should have a private garden of a size equivalent to two-thirds of the dwelling’s gross floor area. The Council argue that the residual private amenity space for No 1 Birfed Crescent, as shown in the application plans would not meet this standard. Furthermore, although the private amenity space proposed for No 1A Birfed Crescent would exceed the standard, that space would be split into two parts, separated from one another by parking and turning areas. The larger part would be some distance from the house. The Council fear that it would not be used. 6. However, it seems to me that if off-street parking provision were concentrated at the front of the site (as suggested [in the earlier part of the decision letter]) there would be ample room to provide adequate garden space at the rear. In any event, the residual back garden to No 1 Birfed Crescent, as shown on the application plans, measures about 8m by 4.7m. In addition, that property has a front garden measuring about 6m by 4.7m, making an aggregate garden area of about 66m². This does not seem to me to be inadequate for a house with a gross floor area of approximately 94m²."
"36. The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the "principal important controversial issues", disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision." 1. I reject the Council's first submission, to the effect that the Inspector misunderstood and misapplied the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance in relation to the private open area for number 1. The relevant part of the Guidance provides: "
"In [Top Deck Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] JPL 961] the court had to deal with a submission that the inspector had failed to consider whether an objection to planning permission for additional buildings on a rather untidy site could be mitigated by the imposition of a condition requiring the demolition of all, rather than just some, of the existing structures on the site. This proposal was not something which the appellant had put before the inspector at the appeal. Mann LJ said at page 964: "
'The notice of motion took two broad points. The first was that the Secretary of State failed to take into account a material consideration being, in effect, the possibility of attaching conditions to any planning permission which might get rid of some or all of the objections raised to this particular change of use.'
'It was one thing to say that where the question of conditions was being canvassed it might be sensible for the Secretary of State to consider making a slight alteration to the condition if that would deal with the problems that might arise: MJ Shanley Limited v Secretary of State and South Bedfordshire District Council [1982] JPL 380. It was a wholly different thing to suggest that where there had been no canvassing of any possible condition, the Secretary of State was bound to look around and consider whether there was or was not some possible condition which might be attached which might save this planning application. If the Secretary of State were to consider attaching a condition, the possibility of which had never been canvassed at the inquiry, he would be accused of doing something without giving the appellant a chance of making representations about it. Clearly, if the Secretary of State were minded to adopt any kind of policy of this character, he would have to re-open the inquiry in those circumstances in order that the appellant should have a chance of dealing with the imposition of a condition which had never been canvassed at the inquiry. If a party to an appeal wanted the appeal to be considered on the basis that some condition could cure the planning objection put forward, then it was incumbent on the appellant to deal with that condition at the inquiry. Unless such a condition has been canvassed the Secretary of State was not at fault in not imposing such a condition. For those reasons, it seemed to him (Forbes J) that the attack on this decision on the grounds of failure to consider the application of conditions failed.'