Citations:
[2008] EWHC 1699 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Planning
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271295
[2008] EWHC 1699 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271295
The court quashed a grant of temporary planning permission to the applicant gypsies to stand a caravan on a green field site.
Mitting J
[2007] EWHC 3209 (Admin)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others CA 23-Jun-2008
The court considered the rejection of an application for temporary planning consent by the gipsies to place a caravan on land in a green belt.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There was a requirement to balance the need to maintain the green belt . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271215
Appeal against quashing of part of local plan.
[2008] EWCA Civ 861
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271220
Appeal against refusal of permission for extension of dwellinghouse.
Sir George Newman
[2007] EWHC 3370 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271214
Parties who depended on inshore marine life objected to the proposed planning permission for a marina which they said would adversely affect the seabed and their industries.
[2007] EWHC 3347 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271166
[2005] EWHC 825 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271156
Collins J
[2008] EWHC 1741 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271038
Mr Justice Sullivan
[2006] EWHC 255 (Admin)
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 113(3)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.239940
Holgate J
[2019] EWHC 1993 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.640132
Lord Justice Hickinbottom
[2019] EWCA Civ 1272
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.639781
Andrews DBE J
[2019] EWHC 1721 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.639704
Dove J
[2019] EWHC 1771 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.639703
Challenge to grant of planning permission for change of use of land neighbouring that of the claimant.
Lang DBE J
[2019] EWHC 1869 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.639694
Application for judicial review of the Defendant Council’s grant of planning permission to the Interested Party which is a provider of social housing, for the demolition of existing garages and their replacement with six social housing units.
David Elvin QC
[2019] EWHC 628 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.639683
Challenges of Defendant’s decision in which he accepted recommendations from Highways England on the choice of a preferred corridor for the proposed new Oxford to Cambridge Expressway
Lang DBE J
[2019] EWHC 1786 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.639689
[2018] EWCA Civ 2532
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.630705
[2017] UKFTT CR-2017-0017 (GRC
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.630625
[2016] EWHC 3059 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.572357
Lang DBE J
[2015] EWHC 3459 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.556466
Challenge to grant of permission for the recycling of incinerator bottom ash
Coulson J
[2016] EWHC 494 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.561168
Complaint that the defendant Local Authority had not properly exercised its discretionary powers under section 173(a)(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or to waive or relax its requirements in circumstances when it became apparent in 2014 that gates and pillars at the claimant’s property specified in an enforcement notice served in 2008 had already become immune from enforcement action before the issue of that notice, which was dated 6 March 2008. The immunity arose because the gates and pillars had been constructed as long ago as 2002.
[2015] EWHC 1417 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.549396
Sales LJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 174, [2015] PTSR 1417, [2016] Env LR 7
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.543890
Supperstone J
[2014] EWHC 4296 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.540249
Challenge to confirmation of tree preservation order.
Beatson J
[2012] EWHC 3305 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.466271
Robin Purchas QC
[2010] EWHC 104 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.466798
His Honour Judge Waksman QC
[2012] EWHC 2794 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.464959
Birtles HHJ
[2012] EWHC 2684 (Admin), [2013] Env LR 11
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.464690
[2009] EWHC 754 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.341180
His Honour Judge Mole QC
[2009] EWHC 745 (Admin), [2009] NPC 59, [2009] Env LR 34
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.341186
Keith J
[2008] EWHC 1540 (Admin)
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270618
Appeal against quashing of permission for development.
[2008] EWCA Civ 746
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270533
[2007] EWCA Civ 851
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270403
Collins J
[2008] EWHC 1373 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270328
Cranston J
[2008] EWHC 1313 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270070
Sullivan J said: ‘Unlike an EIA, which must be in the form prescribed by the EIA Directive, and must include, for example, a non-technical summary, enabling the public to express its opinion on the environmental issues raised (see Berkeley v the Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 AC 603 per Lord Hoffmann at p 615), an appropriate assessment under article 6(3) and regulation 48(1) does not have to be in any particular form (see para 52 of Waddenzee judgment), and obtaining the opinion of the general public is optional . . ‘
Sullivan J
[2008] EWHC 1204 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270055
[2008] EWHC 1047 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270046
[2008] EWHC 1258 (Admin)
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 113
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270061
Application for decision on planning application to allow vehicular crossing over footpath to highway.
Blake J
[2008] EWHC 1286 (Admin)
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270053
[2008] EWCA Civ 620
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.269713
The council appealed refusal of an order against persons unknown with regard to preventing breaches of planning control at a specific site.
Held: An injunction could properly be granted against persons unknown ‘causing or permitting hardcore to be deposited, caravans, mobile homes or other forms of residential accommodation to be stationed, or existing caravans or other mobile homes to be occupied on land’ adjacent to a gypsy encampment in rural Cambridgeshire. The land adjoined a gipsy caravan site. The council had refused applications to allow infill development between such sites. The courts powers had clearly developed sufficiently to make an order of the kind sought in this kind of situation. Brooke LJ commented: ‘There was some difficulty in times gone by against obtaining relief against persons unknown, but over the years that problem has been remedied either by statute or by rule.’
Brooke and Clarke LJJ
[2004] EWCA Civ 1280, Times 11-Nov-2004
England and Wales
Cited – Bloomsbury Publishing Group Ltd and J K Rowling v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others ChD 23-May-2003
The publishers had gone to great lengths to keep advance copies of a forthcoming book in the Harry Potter series secret. They became aware that some had been stolen from the printers and sought injunctions against the defendants and another unnamed . .
Cited – X and Y v Persons Unknown QBD 8-Nov-2006
The claimants sought an injunction against unknown persons who were said to have divulged confidential matters to newspapers. The order had been served on newspapers who now complained that the order was too uncertain to allow them to know how to . .
Cited – Secretary 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.
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.216385
[1998] EWHC Admin 476
England and Wales
Cited – Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.138597
Lieven DBE J
[2019] EWHC 1924 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.639708
Lord Justice Coulson
[2019] EWCA Civ 1230
England and Wales
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.639657
Garnham J
[2019] EWHC 1862 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.639692
The authority appealed by case stated from the dismissal of its complaints that the defendant had altered a listed building. He had been given permission to carry out certain works, but had in effect demolished and rebuilt the property.
Held: Had the prosecution been mounted as the works progressed, the works would have been shown to have altered the character of the buildings, but the final building did not have that characteristic. The district judge had been correct to allow for this and the appeal failed.
Keene LJ, Treacy J
[2008] EWHC 1003 (Admin)
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 9
Cited – Regina v Major Sandhu CACD 10-Dec-1996
The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for infringements of the 1990 Act. The house was already very severly dilapidated when it came to be listed. He was accused of making changes outside the extent of the listed buildings consent he . .
Cited – Shimizu (UK) Ltd v Westminster City Council HL 11-Feb-1997
The removal of a listed building’s chimney stacks was an alteration allowing a claim for compensation. The phrases ‘alteration’ and ‘demolition’ are mutually exclusive. Although part of a building may be a listed building, a part of a listed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267573
Forbes J
[2008] EWHC 730 (Admin)
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267029
[2008] EWHC 708 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266896
Sullivan J
[2008] EWHC 676 (Admin)
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266887
Sullivan J
[2008] EWHC 678 (Admin)
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 69(1)
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266876
Mitting J
[2008] EWHC 637 (Admin)
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266883
Sullivan J
[2008] EWHC 606 (Admin)
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266879
Beatson J
[2008] EWHC 705 (Admin)
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266885
[2008] EWHC 631 (Admin)
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266509
[2005] EWHC 3034 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.238170
Application for injunction to stop defendants occupying land in breach of planning control.
[2006] EWHC 2697 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.245960
The applicant challenged an order requiring him to discontinue use of land on which were listed buildings in need of repair. The authority had concluded that compulsory purchase would not be sufficient to achieve the result required. The land owner contended that such an order was draconian, and should not be made without additional evidence for its necessity.
Held: The true requirement was that the authority was required to be shown to be decisively in the public interest. The continued use would have negatived the attempt to restore the buildings. The inspector had properly balanced the need to restore the buildings and the needs of the settings. His human rights to enjoy his property had not been infringed, because of the public need to restore the buildings and the owners rights, and he would be compensated.
Mr Justice Sullivan
Gazette 11-Jul-2002
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 102
England and Wales
Cited – Coleen Properties Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 26-Jan-1971
The Minister confirmed a compulsory purchase order despite it having been made without any supporting evidence.
Held: The order was set aside. The Minister had erred in not following his Inspector’s conclusion that a compulsory purchase order . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte de Rothschild CA 1988
The court considered the use of powers of compulsory purchase of land under the Acts.
Held: ‘In answer to counsel’s submissions as to ‘special rules’, I summarise my conclusions thus. First, I do not accept that any special rules beyond the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.174321
The claimant operated an hostess bar in Chinatown. The local authority served an enforcement notice, and the applicant applied for planning permission. The authority rejected the application on the basis that that particular bar would encourage crime and be a detriment to the residential character of the area. The inspector rejected it on the basis that any such establishment would be unwelcome in the area. The respondent rejected the appeal.
Held: The Inspector had found against the applicant on a basis (as to the general policy for such establishments as against any detriment associated with this particular establishment) which had not been put to him. The applicants had accordingly not had a chance to place before him their own arguments against that objection. The decision was flawed and remitted for reconsideration.
Mr Justice Collins
Gazette 22-May-2003
England and Wales
See Also – Entertainu Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and Another Admn 26-Oct-2004
. .
See Also – Entertainu Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and Another Admn 26-Oct-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.183801
The landowner applied for planning permission to erect an extension. The Inspector rejected the application on the basis that the privacy and outlook of the neighbouring property would be adversely affected. His inspection had been limited, and had incorrectly thought that the neighbour’s land included a patio area when it was in fact a flat roof. The land owner appealed.
Held: The error was marginal in effect. The view was tentative, and the inspector had properly taken into account the effect of the proposed development on the neighbour’s property. Appeal dismissed.
Justice Sullivan
Gazette 11-Apr-2002
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 78 288
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.170050
The applicant had outline planning permission for residential development of a green field site in an urban area. He allowed it to expire, and made further application. On the local authority failing to decide, it applied to the inspector who refused it. In the light of current policies (PPG3), such development was no longer appropriate.
Held: Though the site was within a village, it had properly been treated as urban. The inspector had properly considered PPG3, and there was no justification for treating it as analogous to previously developed land.
Sullivan J
Gazette 11-Oct-2001
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.166539
HH Judge Klein
[2019] EWHC 1370 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.639236
Challenge to grant of planning permission for a new football and athletic Stadium and associated development, located in the metropolitan Green Belt at Walton on Thames in Surrey.
Mrs Justice Thornton
[2019] EWHC 1409 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.638160
[2018] EWHC 3073 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.630558
Holgate J
[2015] EWHC 1654 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.549401
His Honour Judge Sycamore
[2012] EWHC 3514 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.466931
[2008] EWHC 208 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.266020
Wyn Williams J
[2008] EWHC 117 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264129
The court dismissed an application by the council under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 seeking to quash a decision of the Secretary of State given by his duly appointed inspector by letter dated 19 February 2002. The inspector had allowed an appeal against a decision of the council on 5 September 2000 refusing planning permission for the retention of a residential mobile home at Willow Tree Farm, Love Lane, Iver, Bucks. The permission granted by the inspector was subject to conditions including a condition that it was personal to Mrs Porter.
Judge Rich QC
[2002] EWHC 2136 Admin
England and Wales
Appeal from – South Bucks District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Linda Porter CA 19-May-2003
The applicant, a gipsy had occupied land she had bought. Her occupation was in breach of planning control. The inspector found exceptional cirumstances for allowing her to continue to live there. The authority appealed.
Held: The inspector had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.198567
[2002] EWCA Civ 784
England and Wales
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.217196
The claimant took part in a planning appeal, objecting to a development. After the appeal, the inspector agreed different conditions, but without allowing the claimant to be involved. He appealed.
Held: The inspector was obliged to deal fairly. The claimant was not entitled as of right to attend but had done so, and the issues raised were at the heart of the dispute. The inspector was entitled to come to his one conclusion, but having discussed matters post hearing with the other parties he should have contacted the claimant. Decision set aside,
Sullivan J
Gazette 21-Nov-2002, Times 03-Dec-2002, Gazette 23-Jan-2003
Town and Country Planning (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 (2000 No 1626) 14(3)
England and Wales
Cited – Fairmount Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1976
A local authority had made a compulsory purchase order which was challenged and an inquiry was held. The inspector, after the conclusion of the hearing, conducted his own inspection of the premises as a result of which he concluded that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.178244
The applicant had erected various buildings without permission. At one point, one of two enforcement notices was set aside on the basis that the use had been established for more than four years. Subsequently, buildings were demolished and rebuilt. He answered a further enforcement notice saying that the use had been lawful by virtue of the rejection of the previous notice.
Held: The enforcement notice which had been discharged, related to a change of use only. The breach alleged extended over other areas, and so no lawful use was effective to resist the enforcement. The previous temporary permission was replaced only again by another temporary permission. Policy H21 did not apply.
Gazette 27-Sep-2001
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174(2)(d), 191, 288
England and Wales
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.166181
[1998] EWHC Admin 170
England and Wales
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.138291
A college owned land which it sought to develop for residential purposes. The officers supported the proposal but the committee and inspector went against it, on the basis that it would be a loss of an opportunity to a neighbouring football club to expand. The landowner said there was no evidence of any prospect of the club acquiring the land.
Held: The inspector had failed properly to consider the probability of the club acquiring the land. Its offer had been rejected. The inspector had not explained her reasoning, and the landowner was entitled to know how the conclusion had been reached.
Mr Justice Harrison
Gazette 25-Apr-2002
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
England and Wales
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.170172
The land owners had sought permission to fell an oak tree subject to a tree preservation order in order to prevent further damage from its roots.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The court was asked to decide whether any works to the tree could be said to be necessary if there were other possible works (not involving operations to the tree itself) which would suffice to prevent or abate the nuisance. The test under section 198(6)(b) of the 1990 Act was ‘necessary’, not ‘reasonably necessary’. But the fact that it is the stricter test of necessity (rather than the looser test of reasonable necessity) that must be applied does not lead to the conclusion that, in applying the stricter test, regard is not to be had to all the circumstances. A protected tree should remain protected unless there was a real need to lift that protection. Effect is given to that intention by reading the expression ‘so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance’ as ‘if and so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance’.
Chadwick LJ said: ‘Commonsense suggests that the task in such cases should be to identify and evaluate the various possible means of abating or preventing the nuisance – whether by doing something to the tree itself or by other works – and then to ask, in the light of that evaluation, whether it is, indeed, necessary to do something to the tree, and (if so) what.’ and ‘The better view, as it seems to me, is that Parliament intended that Section 198(6)(b) should be interpreted in a manner which gave proper weight to the word ‘necessary’. It is intended that a protected tree should remain protected unless there was a real need to lift that protection. Effect is given to that intention by reading the expression ‘so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance’ as ‘if and so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance’.
Wall LJ, Blackburne LJ, Sir John Chadwick
Times 21-Jan-2008, [2007] EWCA Civ 1353, [2008] Env LR 17, [2008] 2 EG 146, [2008] BLR 137, [2008] 1 P and CR 25, [2008] 1 WLR 1307, [2008] 1 EGLR 93, [2008] JPL 809, [2008] 4 All ER 673, [2007] NPC 139, [2008] 10 EG 168, [2008] BLGR 379
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 198(6)(b), Town and Country Planning Act 1971 60
England and Wales
Appeal from – Perrin and Another v Northampton Borough Council and others TCC 26-Sep-2006
The claimants sought an order under the Act to allow engineering operations to prevent nuisance from a tree subject to a tree preservation order. . .
Cited – Pabari v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions-And-Nilesh Pabari CA 10-Nov-2004
Housing Costs as part of child support assessment. The court considered the interpretation of the word ‘necessary’, saying that the Court must not qualify the word ‘necessary’ by reference to what might be regarded as reasonable. The word . .
Cited – Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster HL 25-Oct-2001
The landowner claimed damages for works necessary to remediate damage to his land after encroachment of tree roots onto his property.
Held: The issue had not been properly settled in English law. The problem was to be resolved by applying a . .
Cited – Smith v Oliver 1989
. .
Cited – Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School, Regina (on The Application of) v The Archbishop of Westminster and Another CA 14-Apr-2011
Parent Governors of the School disputed the appointment by the defendant of representatives to the school governors, saying that they were ineligible in that parents of current students should have been appointed in their stead if available.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262940
[2007] EWCA Civ 1359
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262879
Andrew Edis QC
[2007] EWHC 2919 (QB)
England and Wales
See Also – South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell CA 2005
The Council had taken out an injunction under section 187B of the 1990 Act to prevent unknown persons placing caravans on certain lands. The defendants acted in breach of those injunctions, and the Council requested their committal for contempt. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262120
[2007] EWHC 2749 (Admin)
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261806
David Elvin QC
[2021] EWHC 59 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.657324
Deputy Judge Neil Cameron QC
[2019] EWHC 1399 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.639232
Sustainable development
Dove J
[2019] EWHC 1524 (Admin), [2019] WLR(D) 379
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.639240
Charles George QC
[2016] EWHC 634 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.562167
The company, formed to oppose it, sought judicial review of the respondent’s decision to grant planning permission for a waste disposal facility.
Irwin J
[2007] EWHC 2558 (Admin)
Cited – Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd Admn 22-Aug-2013
The campaign company sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent granting permission to develop nearby land as a golf course.
Held: The application succeeded. The Secretary of State in preserving the effect of certain policies had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261396
A building owner appealed against enforcement notices which alleged that there had been a material change of use of his buildings in 1982. This notice was issued by a planning authority. As a result of the appeal an inspector determined that the buildings were in hotel use. The use of the buildings did not change between 1982 and 1985. Nevertheless, in the latter year the planning authority issued further enforcement notices alleging that there had been a change of use from hotel to hostel. The Court of Appeal accepted a plea of action estoppel.
Held: The House of Lords confirmed the decision.
Lord Bridge said: ‘In relation to adjudications subject to a comprehensive self-contained statutory code, the presumption, in my opinion, must be that where the statute has created a specific jurisdiction for the determination of any issue which establishes the existence of a legal right, the principle of res judicata applies to give finality to that determination unless an intention to exclude that principle can properly be inferred as a matter of construction of the relevant statutory provisions.’ And
‘The doctrine of res judicata rests on the twin principles which cannot be better expressed than in terms of the two Latin maxims ‘interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium’ and ‘nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa’. These principles are of such fundamental importance that they cannot be confined in their application to litigation in the private law field. They certainly have their place in the criminal law. In principle they must apply equally to adjudications in the field of public law. In relation to adjudications subject to a comprehensive self-contained statutory code, the presumption, in my opinion, must be that where the statute has created a specific jurisdiction for the determination of any issue which establishes the existence of a legal right, the principle of res judicata applies to give finality to that determination unless an intention to exclude that principle can properly be inferred as a matter of construction of the statutory provisions.’
and ‘the local planning authority were . . . estopped from asserting that there had been a material change of use between certain dates, which expressly contradicted the finding made by the first planning inspector, which was not merely incidental or ancillary to his decision but was an essential foundation for his conclusion that no breach of planning control was involved in the use being made of the structure which was the subject of the first notice.’
Lord Bridge
[1990] 2 AC 273
England and Wales
Cited – Secretary of State for Education and Skills v Mairs Admn 25-May-2005
The appellant had been dismissed from the social services department of Haringey Borough Council, and her name placed on a list of persons unsuitable to work with children. She had been criticised in the statutory inquiry into the death of Victoria . .
Cited – Stancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority QBD 22-Jun-2004
The claimants sought a declaration. Planning permission had been confirmed for four mineral extraction sites by letter in 1952. In 1996, two were listed as now being dormant. The claimant said the letter of 1952 created on single planning permision . .
Cited – Special Effects Ltd v L’Oreal Sa and Another CA 12-Jan-2007
The defendants had opposed the grant of the trade mark which they were now accused of infringing. The claimants said that having failed at the opposition stage, they were now estopped from challenging the validity of the mark.
Held: It was not . .
Cited – Coke-Wallis, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales SC 19-Jan-2011
The appellant chartered accountant had been convicted in Jersey after removing documents from his offices relating to a disputed trust and in breach of an order from his professional institute. The court now considered the relevance and application . .
Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC 3-Jul-2013
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .
Cited – DN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 26-Feb-2020
Challenge to imprisonment pending deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘The giving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.228500
Application to review decision not to call in application for planning permission.
Sullivan J
[2007] EWHC 1985 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258823
[2007] EWHC 1839 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258799
Ouseley J
[2002] EWHC 483 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258662
The applicant appealed a refusal of permission with regard to the retention of the use of certain land and existing redundant agricultural buildings for light industrial and storage purposes. The inspector found certain advantages in the proposal, but felt that the structure requirements overrode those advantages. However the plan did allow for such changes. Appeal allowed.
[1996] EWHC Admin 82
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.136630
Application for planning statutory review
Andrews DBE J
[2019] EWHC 1677 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.639244
[2018] EWHC 2886 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.630571
Mrs Justice Nicola Davies
[2012] EWHC 3130 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.465676
Admitted breaches of planning control.
Justice Walker
[2012] EWHC 2686 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.464818
His Honour Judge Pelling QC
[2012] EWHC 2760 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.464817
Post judgment ancillary issues.
[2011] EWHC 3583 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.465563
Residents of a village complained of the standard of sewage works serving their properties, and sought a public sewage system. The complaint was forwarded to Welsh Water, which had an assessment prepared and returned indicating that it would go ahead. The company then changed its mind, but the council persisted. The court was asked whether the company could withdraw its decision.
Held: The company must be able to review its decisions, and nothing in the Act restricted that. The section required an exercise of judgment by the company, allowing for any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. It was not bound to follow such guidance, and nor was any particular methodology of cost benefit analysis required.
Mr Justice Wyn Williams
[2009] EWHC 435 (Admin), [2009] NPC 41, [2009] 2 All ER 919, [2009] Env LR 32, [2009] 11 EG 118
Water Industry Act 1991 101A(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.331096
Collins J
[2007] EWHC 1714 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Trump 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.
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258158