[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-649542-105":59,"doc-detail-649542-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","choiceplace-properties-limited-v-secretary-of-state-for-housing-communities-approved-judgment","Choiceplace Properties Limited - v - Secretary of State for Housing Communities - Approved Judgment","","Approved Judgment in a planning dispute heard in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Planning Court). The claimant, Choiceplace Properties Limited, challenges the defendant Secretary of State’s treatment of the inspector’s decision dismissing the claimant’s appeal relating to refusal of a certificate of lawful use or development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The case concerns whether the permitted development at 157A/157B Holden Road can lawfully be implemented when an approved street scene drawing (notably P.04) was inaccurate regarding ridge heights, and whether the permission is deliverable in line with condition 1 and the approved plans.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/choiceplace-properties-limited-v-secretary-of-state-for-housing-communities-approved-judgment/649542/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/choiceplace-properties-limited-v-secretary-of-state-for-housing-communities-approved-judgment/649542.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"AditGamingID","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-25","2026-10-24",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":8},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the legal basis of the claimant’s application before the court?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The court record states it is an application under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, relating to the inspector’s decision of 31 March 2020.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What planning development was originally approved for the site?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Permission was sought and granted for demolition of two two-storey semi-detached houses and erection of a three-storey block to provide six self-contained flats, provisional car parking, cycle spaces, amenities space, and associated refuse and cycle storage.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why did the parties dispute whether the permission could be implemented?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The claimant was advised that an approved street scene drawing (drawing P.04) was inaccurate: it depicted ridge heights that conflicted with the actual proposed building height, raising an issue about compliance with condition 1.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},649542,1792942120,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":8,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},962094249103,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","Neutral Citation Number: [2021] EWHC 1070 (Admin) Case No: CO/1756/2020  \nIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE  \nQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION  \nPLANNING COURT  \nRoyal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL  \nDate: 27/04/2021  \nBefore :  \nTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE DOVE  \nBetween :  \nChoiceplace Properties Limited Claimant  \n-and  \nSecretary of State for Housing Communities and Defendant  \nLocal Government  \n-and –  \nBarnet London Borough Council Interested Party  \n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  \nMs Jenny Wigley (instructed by Simons Rodkin Solicitors LLP) for the Claimant Mr Charles Streeten (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant  \nHearing dates: Thursday 4th March 2021  \nApproved Judgment  \nCovid-19 Protocol: This judgment was handed down remotely by circulation to the parties’representatives by email, release to BAILII  \nand publication on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website.  \nThe date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10:00 am 27 April 2021.  \nMr Justice Dove:  \nIntroduction 1.  \nThis is an application pursuant to Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the decision of the defendant’s duly appointed inspector dated 31 March 2020, in which he dismissed the appeal of the claimant against the interested parties’ refusal of an application under Section 192(1)(b) of the 1990 Act in respect of a certificate of lawful use or development.  \nThe Facts  \n2.  \nOn the 4 July 2018 the claimant applied for planning permission at a site at 157A and 157B Holden Road, London, N12 7DU for development described as,“Demolition of 2 two-storey semi-detached houses and erection of a 3-storey block to provide 6 selfcontained flats, provisional 6 car parking spaces and 10 cycle spaces, amenities space provision and associated refuse and cycle storage.”  \n3.  \nThat application was considered by the interested party in an officers’ delegated report and it was concluded that permission should be granted. On the 4 July 2018 the interested party granted planning permission for the development subject to 21 conditions. So far as the issues in this case are concerned the important condition is condition 1, which provides as follows:  \n“The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:  \nSite Location Plan; Drawing no. P.01 Rev C; Drawing no. P.02 Rev C; Drawing no. P.03 Rev B; Drawing no. P.04; Drawing no. P.05; Drawing no. P.06 Rev A; Landscaping Scheme Drawing no. TH/A3/1497/LS; Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Method Statement by Trevor Heaps Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd Ref: TH 1497 dated 11th  \nDecember 2017 including drawing no. TH/A3/1497/TPP; Sustainability Statement by Henry Planning; Planning statement by Henry Planning; Document titled “Holden Road, London, N12 8SP – Part M4(2) Category 2 Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings”  \nReason: For the avoidance of doubt and the interests of proper planning and so as to ensure that the development is carried out fully in accordance with the plans as assessed in accordance with Policies CS NPPF and CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (adopted September 2012) and Policy DM01  \nof the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) .”  \n4.  \nNot long after the permission had been granted the claimant mobilised in order to implement the development. In December 2018, the claimant was advised by the architect that it had retained to prepare detailed construction drawings that the street scene drawing P.04 was inaccurate. In essence, the drawing, which was one of those  \nlisted in condition 1 along with the other drawings forming part of the pack accompanying the application, was in error in purporting to show that the proposed development would have a ridge height lower than the neighbouring building 159 Holden Road, when in fact the ridge height of the proposed building would be higher. Whereas the street scene in draw","cbCaiaVFHDodvxR8","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiaVFHDodvxR8","pdf",84780,11,"English","# Introduction\n## The facts and planning permission\n## Condition 1 and approved drawings\n## The drawing discrepancy and ensuing dispute\n## Application for a certificate of lawful use or development\n## Delegated report assessment","[{\"question\":\"What is the legal basis of the claimant’s application before the court?\",\"answer\":\"The court record states it is an application under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, relating to the inspector’s decision of 31 March 2020.\"},{\"question\":\"What planning development was originally approved for the site?\",\"answer\":\"Permission was sought and granted for demolition of two two-storey semi-detached houses and erection of a three-storey block to provide six self-contained flats, provisional car parking, cycle spaces, amenities space, and associated refuse and cycle storage.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the parties dispute whether the permission could be implemented?\",\"answer\":\"The claimant was advised that an approved street scene drawing (drawing P.04) was inaccurate: it depicted ridge heights that conflicted with the actual proposed building height, raising an issue about compliance with condition 1.\"}]","Choiceplace Properties Limited - v - Secretary of State for Housing Communities - Approved Judgment | PDF",1792801423,28]