Heath and Hampstead Society, Regina (on the Application of) v Camden: Admn 3 Apr 2007

The claimant sought the quashing of a planning permission for the demolition of property adjacent to Hampstead Heath pond.
Held: The planning authority’s decision that the replacement dwelling was not ‘materially larger’ than its predecessor, within the meaning of a policy, was vitiated by its failure to understand the policy correctly. In its context, the phrase ‘materially larger’ referred to the size of the new building compared with its predecessor, rather than requiring a broader comparison of their relative impact, as the planning authority had supposed.

Sullivan J
[2007] EWHC 977 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedTesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council SC 21-Mar-2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.251574

Friends of The Earth Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v North Yorkshire County Council and Another: Admn 20 Dec 2016

Claim for judicial review of a decision by the defendant council to grant planning permission for hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’ on a site

Lang DBE J
[2016] EWHC 3303 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572716

O’Flynn v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 17 Nov 2016

The Claimant applied under section 288 of the TCPA 1990 to quash the decision of the First Defendant, made on his behalf by an Inspector, in which he dismissed the Claimant’s appeal from the Second Defendant’s refusal to grant him a certificate of lawful existing use or development, pursuant to section 191 TCPA 1990.

Lang DBE J
[2016] EWHC 2894 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 191
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571958

The Knightland Foundation, Regina v: CACD 26 Jul 2018

The court considered the practice on the giving of the acquittal undertaking. Hallett LJ said that it would be best practice to give the information in open court because: (a) that enables the judge to keep control over the proceedings, including directions if a jury is empanelled and expedition; (b) it provides openness and clarity, in particular for the defendant; (c) emails can get misdirected; (d) although CPR 5.1 encourages electronic filing of applications and notices, CPR 4.11 provides electronic service received after 14.30 is deemed service the next day. adding:
‘ However, it does not follow from the fact that giving notice in open court is best practice that we have no jurisdiction. The question remains – does a prosecutor lose his or her right to apply for leave to appeal by failing to give notice in open court?’

Hallett DBE LJ
[2018] EWCA Crim 1860
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPY, Regina v CACD 22-Jan-2019
Police ‘lawful use’ of dog must be police work
The prosecutor wished to appeal from the acquittal of a police officer, whose police dog, while being exercised, attacked a runner causing injury. The judge had accepted the defence, since the dog required exercise, the officer was using the dog for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Planning

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.624147

Tarmac Heavy Building Materials UK Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions: QBD 14 Jul 1999

A condition requiring the removal of plant and re-instatement of a site after completion of extraction of minerals from it was not properly imposed since the operation of the plant was not necessarily linked to the continuation of the quarrying activities. The court quashed a decision contained in an inspector’s decision letter.

Jackson J
Gazette 14-Jul-1999, (1999) 79 PandCR 260
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedStancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority CA 17-Jun-2005
In 1952, the Minister wrote a leter confirming the planning permissions for four quarries now owned by the claimants. In 1996, two of the quarries were separately included in a list of dormant sites, and in 19999 the applicant began to apply for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.89720

South Oxfordshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another: QBD 13 Jan 2000

Extensive grounds of a house had permissions subject to a condition that they should not be used for landing etc of helicopters. For several years the owner flew helicopters from the property relying upon provisions allowing temporary use. His application for permanent permission was refused. The appeal failed because the inspector had properly assessed the factors and concluded the use would not be incidental to the residential use. New arguments might be raised on appeal, but not always and not in this case.

Gazette 13-Jan-2000
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedNewsmith Stainless Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions Admn 1-Feb-2001
Application was made to quash an inspector’s decision.
Held: An inspector’s decision was not to be challenged as to its facts. In any case where the expert tribunal is the fact finding body the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness or . .
CitedRencher-Paine v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 2-Mar-2011
The applicant challenged refusal of permission for his proposed one bedroom ‘earthship dwelling’. He ran an ostrich farm on the land, and wished to occupy it instead of the caravan presently occupies with temporary permission.
Held: The appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.89416

St George Developments Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Environment and Another: QBD 31 Oct 1994

The company already had outline permission for a residential development at Kew Gardens. Two schemes were submitted. On one, the council failed to reach a timely determination, and it refused the other. The developers appealed to the Secretary of State.
Held: The appeal failed. Section 54A applied also to an appeal against refusal of matters reserved, and in considering an appeal, the Secretary had himself to apply both section 54A and the development plan as a material consideration. His decision was a determination under the Planning Acts.

Nigel McLeod QC
Ind Summary 31-Oct-1994, [1994] 3 PLR 33
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 54A
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.89467

Woodfield v JJ Gallagher Ltd and Others: CA 12 Oct 2016

The court consiered whether, in its order granting relief in these proceedings, the court below exceeded the scope of the remedies provided for in section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in challenges to the adoption of a local plan.

Laws, Lindblom LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1007
Bailii
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 113
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570180

Burge and Another v South Gloucestershire Council: UTLC 27 Jul 2016

UTLC COMPENSATION – Tree Preservation Order – cracks appearing in conservatory – refusal of consent to fell oak tree on adjoining land – claim for cost of rebuilding conservatory – whether loss or damage reasonably foreseeable when consent refused – whether loss or damage foreseeable by claimants when conservatory erected – compensation awarded at andpound;25,000 – Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s203

[2016] UKUT 300 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land, Planning

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569580

Tendring District Council and Others v Persons Unknown: QBD 4 Aug 2016

The applicant councils were host within their area the Clacton-On – sea Airshow, and sought an injunction against the world at large to prevent them causing disruption by the parking of mobile homes and similar on roads in the area

Knowles J
[2016] EWHC 2050 (QB)
Bailii

Road Traffic, Planning

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569081

Liverpool Open and Green Spaces Community Interest Company, Regina (on The Application of) v Liverpool City Council: Admn 18 Jan 2019

Two claims by the applicant community interest company against the grant of planning permissions by the defendant local planning authority. The first permits relocation and laying out of a miniature railway with associated buildings and parking. The second permission is for the building of 39 new dwellings and conversion of a historic house and grounds into 12 apartments.

Kerr J
[2019] EWHC 55 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land, Planning

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.633158

The Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 103: SCS 19 Jul 2016

Opinion

Lord Stewart
[2016] ScotCS CSOH – 103
Bailii
Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007
Citing:
See AlsoThe Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 104 SCS 19-Jul-2016
Outer House – Opinion – challenge to permission for wind farm . .
See AlsoRoyal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 105 SCS 19-Jul-2016
. .
See AlsoRoyal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 106 SCS 19-Jul-2016
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Planning, Utilities, Animals

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568774

The Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 104: SCS 19 Jul 2016

Outer House – Opinion – challenge to permission for wind farm

Lord Stewart
[2016] ScotCS CSOH – 104
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
See AlsoRoyal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 106 SCS 19-Jul-2016
. .
See AlsoRoyal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 105 SCS 19-Jul-2016
. .
See AlsoThe Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 103 SCS 19-Jul-2016
Opinion . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, Animals

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568775

Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd: CA 1992

Neighbours complained at the development of a new commercial port on the site of a disused naval dockyard. Heavy vehicle traffic at night had a seriously deleterious effect on the comfort of local residents.
Held: Although a planning consent could not authorise a nuisance, it could change the character of the neighbourhood by which the standard of reasonable user fell to be judged.

Cumming-Bruce LJ
[1992] 3 All ER 923, [1993] QB 343, [1992] 3 WLR 449
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
CitedWheeler and Another v JJ Saunders Ltd and Others CA 19-Dec-1994
The existence of a planning permission did not excuse the causing of a nuisance by the erection of a pighouse. The permission was not a statutory authority, and particularly so where it was possible it had been procured by the supply of inaccurate . .
CitedLawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Planning

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.188844

Manchester Corporation v Connolly: CA 1970

The local authority sought to use an injunction to assist in enforcing planning controls. The court had no power to make an interlocutory order for possession. Lord Diplock: ‘The writ of possession was originally a common law writ (although it is now regulated, as I say, by Ord. 45 r.3) under which it was ordered that the plaintiff recover possession of the land. Like other common law remedies it did not act in personam against the defendant. It authorised the executive power as represented by the sheriff to do certain things, perform certain acts, in this particular case to evict from land persons who are there and deliver possession of the land to the plaintiff. ‘

Lord Diplock
[1970] Ch 420
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWrexham County Borough Council v Berry; South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and others HL 22-May-2003
The appellants challenged the refusal to grant them injunctions to prevent Roma parking caravans on land they had purchased.
Held: Parliament had given to local authorities exclusive jurisdiction on matters of planning policy, but when an . .
CitedManchester Airport Plc v Dutton and others CA 23-Feb-1999
The claimant sought an order requiring delivery of possession of land occupied by the respondent objectors. They needed to remove trees from the land in order to construct a runway on their own adjacent land. The claimant had been granted a licence . .
CitedSecretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs v Meier and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimant sought a possession order to recover land from trespassers. The court considered whether a possession order was available where not all the land was occupied, and it was feared that the occupiers might simply move onto a different part. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Land, Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.182489

Ronald M Duguid v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions West Lindsey District Council: CA 28 Jul 2000

Issue as to ‘arguable point on new provisions of (the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) of some general importance’ to a recurrent problem of how to safeguard an established or permitted use of land to which a landowner could revert after an enforcement notice had required him to discontinue other uses of the land in breach of planning control.

Lord Justice Ward
Lord Justice Judge
And
Mr Justice Bell
[2000] EWCA Civ 241
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.147274

Taylor v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 30 Jan 2001

An area with a hard surface which was used as a hard standing for feeding sheep, and which was formed by deposit of builder’s rubble was not a habitation and therefore was not used for the accommodation of sheep. Since the landowner was entitled to create such a surface, and entitled to use such waste in that construction, the order to remove it would create unnecessary work and expense.

Times 30-Jan-2001, Gazette 22-Feb-2001
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 289, Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (1995 No 419)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCowen v Secretary of State for Environment Peak District National Park Authority CA 26-May-1999
A land-owner laid a tarmac surface on a path within the National Park. This was held to be an improvement required for the right of way. The fact that works constituted an alteration did not avoid the protection given as an improvement. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromTaylor and Sons (Farms) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Three Rivers District Council CA 31-Jul-2001
Over a long period of time the applicants had deposited large quantities of waste on their land to hard standings and tracks. They were served with enforcement notices alleging a change from agricultural use, to agricultural use with waste deposit, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Planning

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.89751

Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions: QBD 11 Jan 2001

The Secretary called in a decision of the inspector to permit the building of a supermarket, and reversed the decision, holding that a need had been demonstrated, but that the inspector had been insufficiently flexible in applying the sequential test under PPG6, and he felt that the proposal was inconsistent with PPG13. On appeal, it was stated that the Secretary’s decision had been sufficiently detailed to demonstrate his reasoning, and he was entitled to conclude that the inspector should apply a broader test. He had accepted the need for the development, but with clear doubts. His attitude to the parking and travel issues might have been given in more detail, but the deficiency was not enough to vitiate the decision.

Gazette 11-Jan-2001, [2001] JPL 686
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWandsworth London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions CA 19-Feb-2003
The applicant sought permission for a supermarket. It would fall mostly within the Lambeth area, but also in part in a neighbouring borough. One classified the development as a ‘neighbourhood centre’, but the appellant authority classified the shops . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.89777

Save Britain’s Heritage, Regina (on The Application of) v Liverpool City Council and Another: CA 2 Aug 2016

The court considered the meaning and application of the Government’s guidance for the consultation of Historic England and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on proposals for development in the buffer zone of a World Heritage Site.

Sales, Lindblom LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 806, [2016] WLR(D) 457
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567952

PS v Royal Borough of Greenwich and Others: Admn 3 Aug 2016

This claim seeks to quash a planning permission granted by the defendant to the interested parties on 23 December 2015. The defendant had resolved to grant permission at a meeting of its planning board on 21 July 2015. There was then a referral to the Mayor of London whose delegated officer decided neither to direct refusal nor to take over the application for his own consideration. He stated that it represented EIA development and he had taken into account the environmental information in reaching his decision. There were further s.106 considerations before permission was finally granted.

Collins J
[2016] EWHC 1967 (Admin)
Bailii

Planning

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567936

Working Title Films Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another: Admn 22 Jul 2016

Challenge by a neighbouring occupier (WTF) to a grant of planning permission by the Defendant WCC to the Interested Party MSR for ‘the erection of a building including excavation works to provide three basement storeys and six above ground storeys for mixed use purposes including up to 79 residential units, retail shops, restaurants, multi-purpose community hall, community space, cycle and car parking, servicing, landscaping, plant and other works’

Gilbart J
[2016] EWHC 1855 (Admin)
Bailii

Planning

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567512

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Allen and Another: CA 15 Jul 2016

The court considered whether the Secretary of State gave adequate reasons for disagreeing with his inspector’s recommendation to allow an appeal against a refusal of planning permission for the continued use of land for the siting of caravans.

Jackson, Simon, Lindblom LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 767
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567264

Carter Commercial Developments Ltd (In Administration) v Secretary of State For Transport, Local Government And The Regions, Mendip District Council: CA 4 Dec 2002

Appeal from a decision that effectively was a decision on the proper construction of a condition in a planning permission.

Buxton LJ, Arden LJ, Ward LJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 1994
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromCarter Commercial Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for The Environment Admn 27-May-2002
Planning conditions should be interpreted benevolently and not narrowly or strictly. . .

Cited by:
CitedTrump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 16-Dec-2015
The appellant challenged the grant of permission to the erection of wind turbines within sight of its golf course.
Held: The appeal failed. The challenge under section 36 was supported neither by the language or structure of the 1989 Act, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566845

DB Symmetry Ltd v Swindon Borough Council and Another: CA 16 Oct 2020

‘Whether a condition attached to the grant of planning permission for employment development of various kinds lawfully required the public to have rights of passage over roads to be constructed as part of the development.’
Held:
‘If the judge interpreted that circular as authorising the imposition of conditions which not only required a developer to provide an access road, but also to dedicate it to public use as a highway, I consider that she was wrong. Such an interpretation would be flatly contrary to consistent government policy for nearly 70 years. In my judgment Hall does impose an absolute ban on requiring dedication of land as a public highway without compensation as a condition of the grant of planning permission. I also consider, contrary to Mr Harwood’s submission, that there is no difference for this purpose between dedicating a road as a highway and transferring the land itself for highway use. As I have said, the condition in Hall did not require the land itself to be transferred, yet it was still held to be unlawful.’

Lord Justice Lewison
[2020] EWCA Civ 1331
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.655026