The aesthetic merits, or otherwise, of developments are subjective matters for local planning authorities to decide and judges will very rarely intervene. The High Court made that point in upholding planning consent for a large metal storage box that a woman installed in her front garden, to the annoyance of her neighbour.
The woman, whose bungalow was close to a conservation area, used the corrugated iron box as secure storage for her collection of motorbikes. The local authority at first refused to grant retrospective planning consent, but relented and granted permission after she agreed to reposition the box slightly, clad it in wood and plant shrubs around it in order to shield it from view.
In mounting a judicial review challenge to the latter decision, her neighbour argued that the box was an incongruous eyesore and that cladding and planting would do little to improve it. To argue that it was an example of good design, within the meaning of the National Planning Policy Framework, was absurd. The woman’s lawyers, however, argued that to pejoratively characterise the box as utilitarian or entirely functional missed the point. Not every development needed to be designed by an award-winning architect.
The Court acknowledged that the brightly coloured box had an industrial appearance that would be more familiar to a trading estate. However, in dismissing the challenge, the Court ruled that the council was entitled to find that the box would be sufficiently softened by the addition of cladding and shrubs to render it acceptable in planning terms. Not having viewed the box in situ, the Court was in a much poorer position than the council to reach a view on the aesthetics of the development.