Winchester Consistory Court; Clark Ch, March 1998
A petition was sought for the construction of an extension to the south side of a Grade II* church to provide meeting rooms, a choir vestry, a kitchen, lavatory facilities, an office, a boiler room and storage space. The scheme, significantly revised since originally conceived, received planning permission in November 1995. The DAC recommended approval and a poll of those on the electoral roll revealed a substantial majority in favour. It was argued by the objectors that neighbouring properties would be affected by the extension, particularly the view from one house. Acknowledging that the court should be reluctant to grant a faculty which might cause detriment to a person's private property (Re St Peter and St Paul, Upper Teddington [1993] 1 WLR 852), the chancellor stated that a property owner has no right to a view. 'If he thinks a proposal may have an effect on his view, he is entitled to object to the planning authority; but, if planning permission be granted, he cannot resurrect the objection in the consistory court'. Certain other objections were on traffic and parking grounds. The chancellor stated: 'There can be little doubt that a planning authority, with its expert advisers, is in a better position than a consistory court sensibly to decide issues such as traffic flow and parking availability. Indeed, there is a strong argument for saying that, once the planning authority has granted permission for a particular proposal, issues of this kind ought not to be raised for reconsideration by a consistory court. In the exercise of my discretion, however, I have agreed to hear evidence relating to these matters, but only on the basis that the decision whether or not to grant a faculty is unlikely to be affected by it unless the evidence is of a very strong and compelling character. In other words, I shall assume the planning authority made the correct decision in this respect, unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary'. The chancellor resolved the Bishopsgate Questions in favour of the petitioners, and granted the petition.
(1998) 5 Ecc LJ 133
