Category: Planning

Regina v Durham County Council Sherburn Stone Company Limited Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions ex parte Rodney Huddleston: CA 15 Feb 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 792

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Regina v Durham County Council Sherburn Stone Company Limited ex parte Huddlestone Admn 28-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Regina v Durham County Council ex parte Rodney Huddleston Admn 17-Aug-1999
Variation of interim injunction to allow works preparatory to development pending appeal against refusal of planning permission. . .
See Also – Regina v Durham County Council Ex Parte Huddleston QBD 28-Jan-2000
A quarry owner had allowed his mineral extraction licence to lapse, and sought to renew the permission. The authority failed to issue a decision within the appropriate time period, and a deemed permission was granted. It was held however that where . .
See Also – Regina v Durham County Council and Others Ex Parte Huddleston CA 15-Mar-2000
A quarry owner had allowed his mineral extraction licence to lapse, and sought to renew the permission. The authority failed to issue a decision within the appropriate time period, and a deemed permission was granted. The UK system appeared not to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145707

Regina v Caradon District Council Ex Parte Knott: QBD 3 Mar 2000

A planning authority had already issued both rectification and discontinuance notices, and there was now no dispute with the land owner about the need to dismantle existing buildings, it amounted to an abuse of process further to go and issue an enforcement notice which would have the sole purpose of depriving the land owner of any right to claim compensation. Such a notice could only be issued for a genuine planning purpose. That was absent here.

Citations:

Times 03-Mar-2000, [2000] 3 PLR 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.85165

Evans, Regina (on The Application of) v The First Secretary of State and Another: Admn 24 Jan 2005

Challenge to a decision by a planning inspector on the claimant’s appeal against the refusal of the Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council to grant him planning permission to use his land as a private gypsy caravan site with associated structures.

Judges:

Newman J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 149 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.539972

Buglife (the Invertebrate Conservation Trust), Regina (on the Application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp and Another: Admn 22 Feb 2008

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 475 (Admin), [2008] 2 P and CR 7, [2008] Env LR 31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp CA 4-Nov-2008
The court considered an application for a protective costs order in judicial review proceedings in environmental law cases.
Held: The central decision was Corner House Research, but that was to be applied purposively and not rigidly. It was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.266172

Bridgewood Rochester Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 26 Feb 2008

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 405 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1965
The Minister had decided to confirm a CPO of premises which were now alleged not to be a house as was required by the legislation under which the order was made.
Held: The court can interfere if the decision maker has taken into account a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.266171

Tatham Homes Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v First Secretary of State and Another: Admn 16 Jun 2005

Application to quash an inspector’s decision dismissing the claimant’s appeal against the second defendant’s refusal of planning permission for the demolition of an existing building and its replacement with a block of six flats.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 3538 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.263495

Runnymede Borough Council v Smith: 1986

The section provided protection even for caravans which had come on to the site with knowledge of the stop notice, and an injunction was refused on these grounds.

Citations:

[1986] JPEL 592

Statutes:

Town and Country (Amendment) Act 1971 90(2)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wilson v Wychavon District Council and Another Admn 20-Dec-2005
The claimant complained that the law which protected an occupier of a dwelling house from a temporary stop notice did not apply to those living in caravans, and that this was discriminatory.
Held: The claim failed. ‘usually a change of use of . .
Cited – Wilson, Regina (on the Application of) v Wychavon District Council and Another CA 6-Feb-2007
The claimants said that an enforcement notice issued against them under a law which would prevent such a notice against the use of a building as a dwelling, but not against use of a caravan as a dwelling, discriminated against them as gypsies.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.237731

Regina v Mendip District Council ex parte Fabre: 2000

The planning committee had accepted the officer’s recommendation: ‘ . . one is concerned with the members’ reasons not the planning officer’s, but where a planning officer makes a recommendation which is followed by the members, the reasonable inference is that the members did so for the reasons advanced by the officer, unless of course there is some indication to the contrary’.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2000] JPL 810, (2000) 80 P and CR 500

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Richardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .
Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.193786

Richardson and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v North Yorkshire County Council and others: Admn 15 Apr 2003

Judges:

Richards J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 764 (Admin), [2004] 1 P and CR 23, [2003] 18 EGCS 113

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Richardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Richardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.185035

Hussain v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions: 1971

Citations:

(1971) 221 EG 627

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Harrods Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another CA 7-Mar-2002
The applicant sought to allow the roof of its store to be used as a helicopter landing pad, and sought a lawful use certificate. It asserted that such a use was incidental to its main normal use. The secretary of state refused a certificate, against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.183153

Nicholson v The Secretary Of State For The Environment and Maldon District Council: Admn 14 Aug 1997

The appellant appealed a refusal of a lawful development certificate for non-compliance with an agricultural occupancy condition. It had been originally required to be used for occupation by an agricultural worker, but was occupied in breach of that condition for several years. The breach had ceased by the time the certificate was applied for. At the time the occupation had ceased, the property would still have been subject to enforcement proceedings.
Held: The circumstance constituting the breach must be in effect at the date of the application. This appeal failed. The applicant had failed to show that the value of the original condition applied.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 775

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288, Planning and Compensation Act 1991 191

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.137720

Martin-Sklan, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Barnet: Admn 13 Aug 2010

Judicial review application for permission concerns the actions of the London Borough of Barnet in creating a children’s playground in Brookside Open Space without the planning permission it needed and without the authority of the relevant committee or officers of the Council.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2482 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.425329

Antler Homes Wessex Ltd., Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 16 Apr 2008

Appeal against refusal of planning permission for demolition of two houses for redevelopment. Application of Settlement Boundary Policy.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 951 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.267408

Springhall, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames: CA 24 Jan 2006

The claimant appealed refusal of a judicial review of the exercise of a delegated power by an official.
Held: Where the underlying facts and the applicable polices were clear, such an officer’s decision could only be challenged in the case of irrationality or unlawfullness.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Moore-Bick Sir Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 19, Times 13-Feb-2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 22-Feb-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal to make an ex gratia payment for his imprisonment whilst successfully resisting extradition proceedings. Terrorist connections had been suggested, but the judge made an explicit finding that at no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.237857

Petition of Friends of Loch Etive Against Argyll and Bute Council: SCS 27 May 2015

Outer House – Petition for Judicial Review of a decision of the Argyll and Bute Council granting planning permission for the development of a 10-cage rainbow trout farm on Loch Etive in Argyll, at the site known as ‘Etive 6’.

Judges:

Lord Burns

Citations:

[2015] ScotCS CSOH – 61

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Planning

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547649

Suffolk County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Sep 2011

ICO The complainant requested information about a planning application, including correspondence between a specified council department and the applicant or his agent. The public authority disclosed the information it held, but the complainant remains sceptical that all the information has been disclosed. The Commissioner finds that, on the balance of probabilities, Suffolk County Council does not hold any information beyond that which has been disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Suffolk County Council (the council) has correctly applied the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR) to the complainant’s requests and has disclosed all the information, requested by the complainant, which it holds.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0356245

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Planning

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.530907

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food v Jenkins: CA 1963

The Crown was not bound by the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 to get planning permission for the afforestation of its land, though its tenants are so bound.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Looking at the whole of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, I am satisfied that the Crown does not need to get planning permission in respect of its own interest in Crown lands. The reason it is exempt is, not by virtue of any provision in the Act itself, but by reason of the general principle that the Crown is not bound by an Act unless it is expressly or impliedly included.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Danckwerts LJ

Citations:

[1963] 2 QB 317

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Black, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 19-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.651109

Dover District Council v CPRE Kent: SC 6 Dec 2017

‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a duty to be found in statutory sources, European or domestic, or in the common law? And what are the legal consequences of a breach of the duty?’
Held: The appeal failed. ‘Oakley was rightly decided, and consistent with the general law as established by the House of Lords in Doody. Although planning law is a creature of statute, the proper interpretation of the statute is underpinned by general principles, properly referred to as derived from the common law. Doody itself involved such an application of the common law principle of ‘fairness’ in a statutory context, in which the giving of reasons was seen as essential to allow effective supervision by the courts. Fairness provided the link between the common law duty to give reasons for an administrative decision, and the right of the individual affected to bring proceedings to challenge the legality of that decision.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 79, [2018] 2 All ER 121, [2017] WLR(D) 812, [2018] Env LR 17, [2018] JPL 653, [2018] 1 WLR 108, [2018] LLR 305, UKSC 2016/0188

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 2017 Oct 16 am Video, SC 2017 Oct 16 pm Video

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First Instance – Campaign To Protect Rural England (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council Admn 16-Dec-2015
The planning authority granted permission for a substantial development against the advice of its officers. Judicial review was now sought of the process.
Held: The request was refused. . .
Cited – Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd HL 28-Feb-1991
An order allowing demolition of a listed building was possible even though the building itself remained viable. The function of the courts was to validate the decision making process, not the merits of the decision.
Lord Bridge analysed the . .
Cited – Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1993
On a challenge as to the adequacy of the reasons given for a planning decision: ‘I hope I am not over-simplifying unduly by suggesting that the central issue in this case is whether the decision of the Secretary of State leaves room for genuine as . .
Cited – Wrexham 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 . .
Cited – Wall, Regina (on the Application of) v Brighton and Hove City Council Admn 2-Nov-2004
Application for judicial review, seeking an order quashing a grant of planning permission dated by the defendant for the demolition of an existing house and its replacement by eight self-contained apartments. The notice granting planning permission . .
Cited – Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The Court was asked as to the proper interpretation of paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework: ‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for . .
Cited – Martin v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 27-Nov-2015
There is an enforceable duty, said to arise ‘ . . either from the principles of procedural fairness . . or from the legitimate expectation generated by the Secretary of State’s long-established practice . . ‘ on decision makers to give a fully . .
Cited – Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .
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? . .
Cited – Siraj, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Another CA 21-Oct-2010
A local planning authority’s summary reasons for granting permission do not present a full account of the local planning authority’s decision-making process. However, a fuller summary of the reasons for granting planning permission may well be . .
Cited – Hawksworth Securities Plc, Regina (on The Application of) v Ireef Queensgate Peterborough Propco Sarl and Others Admn 26-Jul-2016
Challenge to decision to allow redevelopment of part of shopping centre. Lang J made a general point about what she saw as the difference between a planning inspector conducting an ‘adversarial procedure, akin to court or tribunal proceedings’, . .
Cited – Richardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .
Cited – Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Mole Valley District Council and Another CA 7-May-2014
. .
Cited – Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 30-Jan-2015
. .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Cited – Regina v Universities Funding Council ex parte Institute of Dental Surgery QBD 30-Jul-1993
When considering whether a disciplinary board should have given reasons, the court may find the absence critical ‘where the decision appears aberrant’. ‘the giving of reasons may among other things concentrate the decision-maker’s mind on the right . .
Cited – Regina v Aylesbury Vale District Council and Another; Ex Parte Chaplin and Others CA 19-Aug-1997
A Local Authority need not give its reasons for granting a planning application, even where a previous and identical application had been refused. . .
Cited – Regina v Mendip District Council ex parte Fabre 2000
The planning committee had accepted the officer’s recommendation: ‘ . . one is concerned with the members’ reasons not the planning officer’s, but where a planning officer makes a recommendation which is followed by the members, the reasonable . .
Cited – Berkeley v Secretary of State For The Environment and Others HL 11-May-2000
The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for a new football ground for Fulham Football club, saying that an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been obtained, but was required.
Held: Where a planning application if . .
Cited – Oakley v South Cambridgeshire District Council and Another CA 15-Feb-2017
Appeal against rejection of challenge to grant of permission for development of football ground.
Held: A common law duty on an authority to give reasons did arise in the particular circumstances of that case: where the development would have a . .
Cited – Campaign To Protect Rural England, Kent (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council CA 14-Sep-2016
Appeal against grant of permission to bring judicial review of a planning decision.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the permission quashed. Laws LJ pointed to three particular factors as calling for clear reasons: the ‘pressing nature’ of . .
Cited – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1976
An authority investigating an application for registration of rights of common over land has an implied duty to ‘take reasonable steps to acquaint (itself) with the relevant information.’ A mere factual mistake has become a ground of judicial . .
Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.599755

Hawksworth Securities Plc, Regina (on The Application of) v Ireef Queensgate Peterborough Propco Sarl and Others: Admn 26 Jul 2016

Challenge to decision to allow redevelopment of part of shopping centre. Lang J made a general point about what she saw as the difference between a planning inspector conducting an ‘adversarial procedure, akin to court or tribunal proceedings’, contrasted with a local planning authority as an administrative body, determining an individual application: ‘Its reasons ought to state why planning permission was granted, usually by reference to the relevant planning policies. But it is not conducting a formal adjudication in a dispute between the applicant for planning permission and objectors, and so it is not required to give reasons for rejecting the representations made by those who object to the grant of planning permission.’

Judges:

Lang DBE J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1870 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.567652

Campaign To Protect Rural England (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council: Admn 16 Dec 2015

The planning authority granted permission for a substantial development against the advice of its officers. Judicial review was now sought of the process.
Held: The request was refused.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3808 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Campaign To Protect Rural England, Kent (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council CA 14-Sep-2016
Appeal against grant of permission to bring judicial review of a planning decision.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the permission quashed. Laws LJ pointed to three particular factors as calling for clear reasons: the ‘pressing nature’ of . .
At First Instance – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.569835

Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Another: CA 17 Mar 2016

The parties challenged the interpretation of a paragraph (49) of the National Planning Policy: ‘In particular, they concern the meaning of the requirement in the policy that ‘[relevant] policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites’, and the way in which the policy is to be applied in the making of planning decisions.’
Held: The Court read the words ‘for the supply of housing’ as meaning ‘affecting the supply of housing’, which was regarded as not only the ‘literal interpretation’ of the policy, but ‘the only interpretation consistent with the obvious purpose of the policy when read in its context’.
Lindblom LJ referred to the relevant parts of the NPPF and (at para 21) the three competing interpretations of paragraph 49:
i) Narrow: limited to policies dealing only with the numbers and distribution of new housing, and excluding any other policies of the development plan dealing generally with the disposition or restriction of new development in the authority’s area.
ii) Wider: including both policies providing positively for the supply of new housing and other policies, or ‘counterpart’ policies, whose effect is to restrain the supply by restricting housing development in certain parts of the authority’s area.
iii) Intermediate: as under (ii), but excluding policies designed to protect specific areas or features, such as gaps between settlements, the particular character of villages or a specific landscape designation (as suggested by Ouseley J in the Barwood Land case).
Lindbloom LJ said: Our interpretation of the policy does not confine the concept of ‘policies for the supply of housing’ merely to policies in the development plan that provide positively for the delivery of new housing in terms of numbers and distribution or the allocation of sites. It recognizes that the concept extends to plan policies whose effect is to influence the supply of housing land by restricting the locations where new housing may be developed – including, for example, policies for the Green Belt, policies for the general protection of the countryside, policies for conserving the landscape of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks, policies for the conservation of wildlife or cultural heritage, and various policies whose purpose is to protect the local environment in one way or another by preventing or limiting development. It reflects the reality that policies may serve to form the supply of housing land either by creating it or by constraining it – that policies of both kinds make the supply what it is.’
The court rejected the ‘narrow’ interpretation, advocated by the councils, which it thought ‘plainly wrong’: ‘It is both unrealistic and inconsistent with the context in which the policy takes its place. It ignores the fact that in every development plan there will be policies that complement or support each other. Some will promote development of one type or another in a particular location, or by allocating sites for particular land uses, including the development of housing. Others will reinforce the policies of promotion or the site allocations by restricting development in parts of the plan area, either in a general way – for example, by preventing development in the countryside or outside defined settlement boundaries – or with a more specific planning purpose – such as protecting the character of the landscape or maintaining the separation between settlements.’

Judges:

Jackson, Vos, Lindbloom LJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 168, [2016] WLR(D) 151, [2016] PTSR 1315

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Cheshire East Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 25-Feb-2015
. .
Appeal from – Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 30-Jan-2015
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The Court was asked as to the proper interpretation of paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework: ‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.561221

Campaign To Protect Rural England, Kent (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council: CA 14 Sep 2016

Appeal against grant of permission to bring judicial review of a planning decision.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the permission quashed. Laws LJ pointed to three particular factors as calling for clear reasons: the ‘pressing nature’ of the AONB policy as expressed in the NPPF para 115-6 (‘the highest status of protection’); the departure from the officers’ recommendation; and the specific duty imposed by the EIA regulations. Although he noted the relative ‘thinness’ of the material available to the committee on the viability issue, he relied principally on the failure of the committee to assess and explain the degree of harm to the AONB, having regard to the strictness of the policy and the strong view of harm taken by the officers. The only reference to this issue in the minutes spoke of the need to assess whether the advantages ‘outweighed’ the harm to the AONB, wrongly implying that it was simply a question of ‘striking a balance’. Further the reference to ‘minimising the harm’ by ‘effective screening’ took no account of the officers’ view that the change of levels to the east would mean that ‘over time, screening would be largely ineffective’.

Judges:

Laws, Simon LJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 936

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Campaign To Protect Rural England (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council Admn 16-Dec-2015
The planning authority granted permission for a substantial development against the advice of its officers. Judicial review was now sought of the process.
Held: The request was refused. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.569493

Oakley v South Cambridgeshire District Council and Another: CA 15 Feb 2017

Appeal against rejection of challenge to grant of permission for development of football ground.
Held: A common law duty on an authority to give reasons did arise in the particular circumstances of that case: where the development would have a ‘significant and lasting impact on the local community’, and involved a substantial departure from Green Belt and development plan policies, and where the committee had disagreed with its officers’ recommendations.
Elias LJ said: ‘The significance of that fact is not simply that it will often leave the reasoning obscure. In addition, the fact that the committee is disagreeing with a careful and clear recommendation from a highly experienced officer on a matter of such potential significance to very many people suggests that some explanation is required . . the dictates of good administration and the need for transparency are particularly strong here, and they reinforce the justification for imposing the common law duty.’

Judges:

Elias, Patten, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2017] 1 WLR 3765, [2017] EWCA Civ 71, [2017] WLR(D) 105

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.575305

Martin v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 27 Nov 2015

There is an enforceable duty, said to arise ‘ . . either from the principles of procedural fairness . . or from the legitimate expectation generated by the Secretary of State’s long-established practice . . ‘ on decision makers to give a fully reasoned decision.

Judges:

Lindblom LJ

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3435 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.556463

Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Mole Valley District Council and Another: CA 7 May 2014

Judges:

Richards LJ, Underhill LJ, FloydLJ

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 567, [2014] WLR(D) 199, [2014] PTSR D14

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.525109

Uprichard v Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland): SC 24 Apr 2013

The appellants challenged the adequacy of the reasons given by the respondents in approving planning policies, in particular the structure plan, adopted by Fife Council for the future development of St Andrews. An independent expert’s report had been obtained and incorporated in the plan. She had objected that St Andrews had reached te limit of its proper development without damage to the landscape. The Ministers replied that they had considered the objection, but that the report had indicated otherwise.
Held: The appeal failed. The ministers task at this stage was concerned with policy and general proposals. The objections raised related to matters dealt with at earlier stages of development of the plan. There being no identified flaw in the approval, the appeal must fail.

Judges:

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Carloway

Citations:

[2013] UKSC 21, UKSC 2012/0034

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

At Outer House – Uprichard v Order of The Scottish Ministers SCS 30-Jul-2010
The petitioners soiught to object to the decision of the Ministers to approve a structure plan proposed for the future development of St Andrews.
Held: The request was refused. . .
Appeal from – Uprichard v The Scottish Ministers and Another SCS 7-Sep-2011
The applicant sought a reclaiming motion against the local council’s Structure plan.
Held: The request was refused. Lord Justice Clerk Gill said: ‘A structure plan is that part of the statutory development plan that sets out the overall . .
See Also – Fife Council v Uprichard SCS 10-Nov-2011
The applicant had had rejected her challenge to the planning policy of the respondens. The court now considered the Council’s motion for expenses. . .
Cited – Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd HL 28-Feb-1991
An order allowing demolition of a listed building was possible even though the building itself remained viable. The function of the courts was to validate the decision making process, not the merits of the decision.
Lord Bridge analysed the . .
Cited – Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .
Cited – Edwin H Bradley and Sons Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment 1982
Reasons given for a decision may be brief, whilst still following Poyser. The fact that a procedure is not in the nature of a judicial or quasi-judicial hearing between parties may mean that the requirement to give a party full opportunity to . .
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.

Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.472944

Siraj, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Another: CA 21 Oct 2010

A local planning authority’s summary reasons for granting permission do not present a full account of the local planning authority’s decision-making process. However, a fuller summary of the reasons for granting planning permission may well be necessary ‘where members have granted planning permission contrary to a planning officer’s recommendation in order to allow members of the public to ascertain the lawfulness of the decision’.

Judges:

Sullivan LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1286, [2011] JPL 571

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Siraj, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Council and Others Admn 5-Mar-2010
. .

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.426465

Siraj, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Council and Others: Admn 5 Mar 2010

Judges:

Langan J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 444 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Siraj, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Another CA 21-Oct-2010
A local planning authority’s summary reasons for granting permission do not present a full account of the local planning authority’s decision-making process. However, a fuller summary of the reasons for granting planning permission may well be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.402539

Wall, Regina (on the Application of) v Brighton and Hove City Council: Admn 2 Nov 2004

Application for judicial review, seeking an order quashing a grant of planning permission dated by the defendant for the demolition of an existing house and its replacement by eight self-contained apartments. The notice granting planning permission did not state the relevant policies which had been applied in coming to the decision. Attempts had later been made to elicit the reasons from the committee members.
Held: The grant of permission was quashed. The method by which the permission had been promulgated was unlawful. The rules required the information to be given to allow greater involvement of the public in the planning procedure. The officers might have taken the permission back to the same committee at the earliest opportunity to remedy the defunct, but that had not been done.
Sullivan J explained: ‘Over the years the public was first enabled and then encouraged to participate in the decision-making process. The fact that, having participated, the public was not entitled to be told what the local planning authority’s reasons were, if planning permission was granted, was increasingly perceived as a justifiable source of grievance, which undermined confidence in the planning system . . ‘

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-2004, [2004] EWHC 2582 (Admin), [2004] 4 PLR 115, [2005] JPL 807, [2005] 1 P and CR 33, [2004] 46 EG 150

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Ermakov CA 14-Nov-1995
The applicant, having moved here from Greece, applied for emergency housing. The Council received no reply to its requests for corroboration sent to Greece. Housing was refused, but the officer later suggested that the real reason was that the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.219546

South Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2): HL 1 Jul 2004

Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the basis that the inspector’s reasons were insufficient.
Held: Wherever an occupier seeks to rely upon the very fact of his continuing use of land it must be material to recognise the unlawfulness (if such it was) of that use as a consideration operating to weaken his claim. A development without planning permission unlawful only in being in breach of planning control. Where it has been persisted in for many years despite being enforced against, that is rather characterised as criminal. In this case the illegality had little effect. Appeal allowed.
Lord Brown summarised the content of the duty on inspectors: ‘The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the ‘principal important controversial issues’, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision. ‘

Judges:

Lord Steyn, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2004] UKHL 33, Times 02-Jul-2004, [2003] 2 AC 558, [2004] 1 WLR 1953, [2004] 4 All ER 775, [2004] 28 EGCS 177, [2004] NPC 108

Links:

Bailii, House of Lords

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
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? . .
Cited – Bolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 25-May-1995
There had been an application in 1986 for planning permission for a shopping centre in Trafford. There were two public enquiries, followed, as public policy changed by further representations. The plaintiff complained that the eventual decision . .
Cited – Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd HL 28-Feb-1991
An order allowing demolition of a listed building was possible even though the building itself remained viable. The function of the courts was to validate the decision making process, not the merits of the decision.
Lord Bridge analysed the . .
Cited – Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .
Cited – Edwin H Bradley and Sons Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment 1982
Reasons given for a decision may be brief, whilst still following Poyser. The fact that a procedure is not in the nature of a judicial or quasi-judicial hearing between parties may mean that the requirement to give a party full opportunity to . .
Cited – South Somerset District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1993
Following Seddon properties, when considering the degree of detail to be given by an inspector in his decision notice: ‘The inspector is not writing an examination paper . . One must look at what the inspector thought the important planning issues . .
Cited – Seddon Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment 1978
The court considered the degree of detail to be provided in a decision notice: ‘Since the courts will only interfere if he acts beyond his powers (which is the foundation of all the above principles), it is clear that his powers include the . .
Cited – Chapman v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 18-Jan-2001
The question arose as to the refusal of planning permission and the service of an enforcement notice against Mrs Chapman who wished to place her caravan on a plot of land in the Green Belt. The refusal of planning permission and the enforcement . .
Cited – Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1993
On a challenge as to the adequacy of the reasons given for a planning decision: ‘I hope I am not over-simplifying unduly by suggesting that the central issue in this case is whether the decision of the Secretary of State leaves room for genuine as . .
Cited – Regina v Leominster District Council ex parte Pothecary CA 28-Oct-1997
A building was erected without planning permission. The local planning authority chose not to serve an enforcement notice but rather had invited an application for retrospective planning permission.
Held: The fact that a building has already . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mid-Bedfordshire District Council v Thomas Brown and others CA 20-Dec-2004
The land owners, gypsies, had purchased agricultural land intending to occupy it as residential land in breach of green belt planning controls. The council had obtained an injunction, but appealed its suspension.
Held: The council’s appeal . .
Cited – Lisa Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v South Norfolk Council Admn 10-Nov-2006
The claimant gypsies had bought and moved onto land in Norfolk and stayed there in breach of planning enforcement notices. The inspector upheld the notices, but advised the Council of the difficulties in finding sites and had stayed enforcement for . .
Cited – Wilson, Regina (on the Application of) v Wychavon District Council and Another CA 6-Feb-2007
The claimants said that an enforcement notice issued against them under a law which would prevent such a notice against the use of a building as a dwelling, but not against use of a caravan as a dwelling, discriminated against them as gypsies.
Cited – Lawntown Ltd v Camenzuli and Another CA 10-Oct-2007
Objecting neighbours appealed against a decision allowing a variation of a restrictive covenant to allow the owner to convert a dwellinghouse into two self-contained apartments.
Held: The appeal failed. The power in the 1985 Act to vary a . .
Cited – Friends of Basildon Golf Course v Basildon District Council and Another Admn 23-Jan-2009
The council owned land on which it ran a golf course. It set out to privatise it and sought interest. An application was made for planning permission. The applicants objected to the planning permission, saying that the Environmental Impact . .
Cited – Savva, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Admn 11-Mar-2010
The claimant challenged the defendant’s policies on caring for elderly people within the community saying that it provided insufficient funds, and the procedures for review were inadequate and infringed her human rights. . .
Cited – Rencher-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 . .
Cited – Wind Prospect Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 5-Dec-2014
The claimant appealed against refusal of permission to erect a six turbine wind farm. The inspector had recommended the plan, but the defendant had decided against it.
Held: The claim failed. The planning inspector’s report is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.198541

Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment: CA 1993

On a challenge as to the adequacy of the reasons given for a planning decision: ‘I hope I am not over-simplifying unduly by suggesting that the central issue in this case is whether the decision of the Secretary of State leaves room for genuine as opposed to forensic doubt as to what he has decided and why. This is an issue to be resolved as the parties agree on a straightforward down-to-earth reading of his decision letter without excessive legalism or exegetical sophistication.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR

Citations:

(1993) 66 P and CR 263

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – South Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .
Cited – Assura Pharmacy Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v National Health Service Litigation Authority (Family Health Services Appeal Unit) CA 5-Dec-2008
The parties challenged the refusal and admission to the respective lists of pharmacies allowed to operate in the Todmorden and Freckleton districts. The judge had said that the local PCTs had departed from the appropriate ministerial guidance which . .
Applied – First Secretary of State and Another v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd CA 2-Nov-2007
. .
Approved – Wrexham 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 . .
Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.198578

Edwin H Bradley and Sons Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment: 1982

Reasons given for a decision may be brief, whilst still following Poyser. The fact that a procedure is not in the nature of a judicial or quasi-judicial hearing between parties may mean that the requirement to give a party full opportunity to advance his case does not apply in the same way as in such procedures. The reasons given must comply with the test formulated by Megaw J in In re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration, adding that provided the reasons comply with that test, the Secretary of State could not be challenged in that respect.

Judges:

Glidewell J

Citations:

(1982) 264 EG 926, 1982 47 P and CR 374

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .

Cited by:

Cited – South Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .
Approved – 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? . .
Cited – Uprichard v Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellants challenged the adequacy of the reasons given by the respondents in approving planning policies, in particular the structure plan, adopted by Fife Council for the future development of St Andrews. An independent expert’s report had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Administrative

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.198568

Richardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council: CA 19 Dec 2003

The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the meeting at which the decision was made contrary to the model code of conduct.
Held: On the facts the council had taken the decision in the light of proper consideration of the regulations as to the need for an assessment. The requirement to exclude a member with an interest applied to all members and not just those who had a part in the matter before the committee. It was not open to a member to declare his interest and continue to take part in the meeting. Leave to refer a question to the European Court was refused.
Notwithstanding a clear failure to provide a statement of reasons as required by regulation 21 of the EIA regulations it was held that the appropriate remedy was, not to quash the decision itself, but to make a mandatory order for the required statement to be provided. In the leading judgment, Simon Brown LJ adopted the reasoning at first instance: ‘the first and most important point in the present case is that regulation 21(1) looks to the position after the grant of planning permission. It is concerned with making information available to the public as to what has been decided and why it has been decided, rather than laying down requirements for the decision-making process itself. It implements the obligation in article 9(1) of the directive to make information available to the public ‘when a decision to grant . . development consent has been taken’ (emphasis added). That is to be contrasted with article 2(1) of the Directive, which lays down requirements as to what must be done before the grant of planning permission (which may be granted only after a prior assessment of significant environmental effects).
The fact that the requirement focuses on the availability of information for public inspection after the decision has been made, rather than on the decision-making process, leads me to the view that a breach of regulation 21(1) ought not to lead necessarily to the quashing of the decision itself. A breach should be capable in principle of being remedied, and the legislative purpose achieved, by a mandatory order requiring the authority to make available a statement at the place, and containing the information, specified in the regulation.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Scott Baker Lord Justice Simon Brown

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1860, [2003] EWCA Civ 1921, Times 19-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1920

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England & Wales) Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Richardson and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v North Yorkshire County Council and others Admn 15-Apr-2003
. .
Cited – Regina v Yeovil Borough Council, ex parte Trustees of Elim Pentecostal Church, Yeovil QBD 1971
The Council’s Planning Committee had resolved that the town clerk should be authorised to approve the application when evidence of an agreement about car parking facilities had been received.
Held: There is no effective planning permission . .
Cited – Berkeley v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames CA 29-Jun-2001
There is no obligation to refer every application to the Secretary of State where an objector raised a plausible argument that an environmental impact assessment might be needed. In this case the application did not fall within Schedule I, and nor . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham And Others, ex parte Burkett and Another HL 23-May-2002
The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission for a development which would affect her. The authority objected that the application was made after three months after their decision, and so leave should not be . .
Cited – Brayhead (Ascot) Ltd v Berkshire County Council CA 1964
Planning permission had been granted subject to conditions, but no reasons had been given for the imposition of those conditions. The Order required the local planning authority to state its reasons in writing if it decided to grant planning . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Ermakov CA 14-Nov-1995
The applicant, having moved here from Greece, applied for emergency housing. The Council received no reply to its requests for corroboration sent to Greece. Housing was refused, but the officer later suggested that the real reason was that the . .
Cited – Flannery and Another v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, Trading As Colleys Professional Services CA 18-Feb-1999
A judge at first instance taking a view on an expert’s report should give reasons in his judgment for that view. On appeal, where no reasons had been given, he should be asked to provide reasons by affidavit for the appeal. An inadequately reasoned . .
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Carlton-Conway) v London Borough of Harrow Admn 7-Nov-2001
The applicant objected to an application for planning permission by a neighbour. The authority authorised officers to exercise delegated powers to grant permission where no objection had been received. Even then the officer could exercise the power . .
Cited – Regina (Goodman and Another) v Lewisham London Borough Council CA 14-Feb-2003
Claimants challenged the grant of planning consent for the construction of a storage and distribution facility without first undertaking an environmental impact assessment.
Held: The local authority had concluded that the project could not be . .
Cited – Regina v Mendip District Council ex parte Fabre 2000
The planning committee had accepted the officer’s recommendation: ‘ . . one is concerned with the members’ reasons not the planning officer’s, but where a planning officer makes a recommendation which is followed by the members, the reasonable . .
Cited – Regina v Flintshire County Council, Ex Parte Armstrong-Braun CA 20-Feb-2001
A local council introduced a standing order to the effect that an item could not be placed on an agenda without being seconded. In doing so it had failed entirely to consider the fundamental effect this would have on democracy. Independent members . .
Cited – Jones, Regina (on the Application of) v Mansfield District Council and Another CA 16-Oct-2003
Plannning permission was sought. Objectors said that it would have such an impact that an environmental impact assessment was required. They now sought judicial review of the decision to proceed without one.
Held: The judge had explained the . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Richardson and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v North Yorkshire County Council and others Admn 15-Apr-2003
. .
Cited – Murphy v Ethical Standards Officer of Standards Board for England Admn 28-Oct-2004
The claimant, a local authority councillor, challenged a finding that he had contravened the Code of Conduct, by failing to withdraw from a meeting in which he had a personal interest, namely a critical report by the Local Government Ombudsman.
Cited – Scrivens v Ethical Standards Officer Admn 11-Apr-2005
The councillor appealed an adjudication that he had failed adequately to declare an interest at a meeting of the council. The officer thought the duty to withdraw was entirely objective, the applicant that it was a matter for his honest judgment. At . .
Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.188900

Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd: HL 28 Feb 1991

An order allowing demolition of a listed building was possible even though the building itself remained viable. The function of the courts was to validate the decision making process, not the merits of the decision.
Lord Bridge analysed the effect of the requirement to show ‘substantial prejudice’, saying: ‘Whatever may be the position in any other legislative context, under the planning legislation, when it comes to deciding in any particular case whether the reasons given are deficient, the question is not to be answered in vacuo. The alleged deficiency will only afford a ground for quashing the decision if the court is satisfied that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by it. This reinforces the view I have already expressed that the adequacy of reasons is not to be judged by reference to some abstract standard. There are in truth not two separate questions: (1) were the reasons adequate? (2) if not, were the interests of the applicant substantially prejudiced thereby? The single indivisible question, in my opinion, which the court must ask itself whenever a planning decision is challenged on the ground of a failure to give reasons is whether the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by the deficiency of the reasons given. Here again, I disclaim any intention to put a gloss on the statutory provisions by attempting to define or delimit the circumstances in which deficiency of reasons will be capable of causing substantial prejudice, but I should expect that normally such prejudice will arise from one of three causes. First, there will be substantial prejudice to a developer whose application for permission has been refused or to an opponent of development when permission has been granted where the reasons for the decision are so inadequately or obscurely expressed as to raise a substantial doubt whether the decision was taken within the powers of the Act. Secondly, a developer whose application for permission is refused may be substantially prejudiced where the planning considerations on which the decision is based are not explained sufficiently clearly to enable him reasonably to assess the prospects of succeeding in an application for some alternative form of development. Thirdly, an opponent of development, whether the local planning authority or some unofficial body like Save, may be substantially prejudiced by a decision to grant permission in which the planning considerations on which the decision is based, particularly if they relate to planning policy, are not explained sufficiently clearly to indicate what, if any, impact they may have in relation to the decision of future applications.’

Here again, I regret to find myself in disagreement with Woolf LJ who said, 60 P and CR 539, 557: ‘Once it is accepted that the reasoning is not adequate, then in a case of this sort it seems to me that, apart from the exceptional case where it can be said with confidence that the inadequacy in the reasons given could not conceal a flaw in the decision-making process, it is not possible to say that a party who is entitled to apply to the court under section 245 has not been substantially prejudiced.’
The flaw in this reasoning, it seems to me, is that it assumes an abstract standard of adequacy determined by the court and then asserts, in effect, that a failure by the decision-maker to attain that standard will give rise to a presumption of substantial prejudice which can only be rebutted if the court is satisfied that the inadequacy ‘could not conceal a flaw in the decision-making process.’ But this reverses the burden of proof which the statute places on the applicant to satisfy the court that he has been substantially prejudiced by the failure to give reasons. When the complaint is not of an absence of reasons but of the inadequacy of the reasons given, I do not see how that burden can be discharged in the way that Woolf L.J. suggests unless the applicant satisfies the court that the shortcoming in the stated reasons is of such a nature that it may well conceal a flaw in the reasoning of a kind which would have laid the decision open to challenge under the other limb of section 245. If it was necessary to the decision to resolve an issue of law and the reasons do not disclose how the issue was resolved, that will suffice. If the decision depended on a disputed issue of fact and the reasons do not show how that issue was decided, that may suffice. But in the absence of any such defined issue of law or fact left unresolved and when the decision was essentially an exercise of discretion, I think that it is for the applicant to satisfy the court that the lacuna in the stated reasons is such as to raise a substantial doubt as to whether the decision was based on relevant grounds and was otherwise free from any flaw in the decision-making process which would afford a ground for quashing the decision.’
Lord Bridge also considered the nature of the statutory duty on the Minister to give reasons under Rule 17(1) of the 1988 Rules. He said: ‘The three criteria suggested in the dictum of Megaw J. in In re Poyser and Mills Arbitration [1964] 2 QB 467, 478 are that reasons should be proper, intelligible and adequate. The application of the first of these presents no problem. If the reasons given are improper they will reveal some flaw in the decision-making process which will be open to challenge on some ground other than the failure to give reasons. If the reasons are unintelligible, this will be equivalent to giving no reasons. The difficulty arises in determining whether the reasons given are adequate, whether in the words of Megaw J., they deal with the substantial points that have been raised or in the words of Philips J. in Hope v Secretary of State for the Environment 31 P. and C.R. 120, 123 enable the reader to know what conclusion the decision-maker has reached on the principal controversial issues. What degree of particularity is required? It is tempting to think that the Court of Appeal or your Lordships’ House would be giving helpful guidance by offering a general answer to this question and thereby ‘setting the standard’ but I feel no doubt that the temptation should be resisted, precisely because the court has no authority to put a gloss on the words of the statute only to construe them. I do not think one can safely say more in general terms than that the degree of particularity required will depend entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 153, Times 01-Mar-1991, [1991] 2 All ER 10, [1991] 62 P and CR 105

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .
Cited – Hope v Secretary of State for the Environment 1975
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Linden Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions CA 27-Nov-2002
The developer made it clear in his application that only a development on the large scale envisaged would be satisfactory. The Inspector refused the application, and he appealed saying the Inspector had not said what size of development would have . .
Cited – South Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .
Cited – Uprichard v Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellants challenged the adequacy of the reasons given by the respondents in approving planning policies, in particular the structure plan, adopted by Fife Council for the future development of St Andrews. An independent expert’s report had . .
Cited – Wind Prospect Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 5-Dec-2014
The claimant appealed against refusal of permission to erect a six turbine wind farm. The inspector had recommended the plan, but the defendant had decided against it.
Held: The claim failed. The planning inspector’s report is the . .
Cited – AA069062014 and Others AIT 30-Aug-2017
Several appellants, all from the same judge, complained of his handling of their cases.
Held: The complaints about the decisions were entirely well-founded: ‘Nobody reading them could detect how the judge reached the conclusion he did, acting . .
Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Land, Planning

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.183338

Wrexham 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 authority sought assistance in enforcement by requesting an injunction, the role of the court was not merely supervisory, but original, and it had a duty to assess each case on its merits. The remedy of an injunction, carrying the threat of imprisonment is personal to the proposed injunctee. The court was not bound to follow the views of the local authority in enforcing planning control, and the proposed injunction must be both just and proportionate. The balance between Roma and other parts of society will always be difficult to find.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: ‘When granting an injunction the court does not contemplate that it will be disobeyed . . Apprehension that a party may disobey an order should not deter the court from making an order otherwise appropriate: there is not one law for the law-abiding and another for the lawless and truculent.’
Lord Brown gave a broad summary of the authorities: ‘The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the ‘principal important controversial issues’, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

[2003] UKHL 26, Times 23-May-2003, Gazette 05-Jun-2003, Gazette 10-Jul-2003, [2003] 2 WLR 1547, [2003] 2 AC 558

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chapman v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 18-Jan-2001
The question arose as to the refusal of planning permission and the service of an enforcement notice against Mrs Chapman who wished to place her caravan on a plot of land in the Green Belt. The refusal of planning permission and the enforcement . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Bastow 1957
The case involved an attempt by a local authority to enforce planning control by a relator action requiring the removal of caravans on land in breach of planning control. The use of the service of stop notices, are supported by the power of the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Mole Valley District Council v Smith 1992
The local authority sought to use its powers under the Act to enforce planning control over gypsies. . .
Cited – Waverley Borough Council v Hilden 1988
The local authority sought to use its powers under the Act to enforce planning control over gypsies. . .
Cited – Regina v Lincolnshire County Council Ex Parte Atkinson; Regina v Wealden District Council Ex Parte Wales and Others QBD 3-Oct-1995
A local Authority must make proper welfare enquiries before seeking to remove unlawful campers. The new draconic legislation must be seen in its context. The commons of England provided lawful stopping places for people whose way of life was or had . .
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? . .
Cited – Basildon District Council v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions Admn 2-Feb-2001
The court considered the relevance of personal circumstances to the grant of injunctions in enforcement of planning conditions.
Held: In any considerations of common humanity, the needs of these particular gypsy families were a material . .
Cited – In re Liddell’s Settlement Trusts CA 1936
The Court upheld an injunction issued against Mrs Liddell who was not a party to the proceedings and who had taken her children to the United States. When granting an injunction, the court should operate on the basis that it will be obeyed, and not . .
Cited – Castanho v Brown and Root (UK) Ltd HL 1981
A claim was made for an anti-suit injunction.
Held: The court is reluctant to make orders which would be ineffective to achieve what they set out to do, but the fear that the defendant will not obey an injunction is not a bar to its grant. The . .
Cited – Buckley v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Sep-1996
The Commission had concluded, by a narrow majority, that the measures taken by the respondent in refusing planning permission and enforcing planning orders were excessive and disproportionate, even allowing a margin of appreciation enjoyed by the . .
Cited – William Browning, Maureen Browning v Messrs Brachers (A Firm) QBD 15-May-2003
The claimants sought damages for professional negligence, in having failed to pursue a claim for professional negligence against a previous firm of solicitors who had acted for the claimant. . .
Cited – Attorney General v Chaudry CA 1971
The court has jurisdiction to grant a civil law remedy by way of injunction in order to enforce the public law, except in cases where statute had expressly or by necessary implication removed the jurisdiction. Whenever Parliament has enacted a law . .
Cited – Smart v Sheffield City Council: Central Sunderland Housing Company Limited v Wilson CA 25-Jan-2002
Each tenant had become unintentionally homeless, and was granted a non-secure tenancy of accommodation under section 193. Complaints of nuisance were received from neighbours. Possession orders were obtained and now challenged under the Human Rights . .
Appeal from – Porter, Searle and Others, Berry and Harty v South Buckinghamshire District Council, Chichester District Council, Wrexham County Borough Council, Hertsmere Borough Councilt CA 12-Oct-2001
Local authorities had obtained injunctions preventing the defendants from taking up occupation, where they had acquired land with a view to living on the plots in mobile homes, but where planning permission had been refused. The various defendants . .
Approved – Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1993
On a challenge as to the adequacy of the reasons given for a planning decision: ‘I hope I am not over-simplifying unduly by suggesting that the central issue in this case is whether the decision of the Secretary of State leaves room for genuine as . .

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Davis and Others v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council CA 26-Feb-2004
The claimants were travelling showmen who had purchased land, and after failing to apply for permission, moved onto the land and began to live there.
Held: The cultural identity of travelling show-people and their status, as a matter of . .
Applied – Coates and others v South Bucks District Council ChD 27-Jan-2004
. .
Cited – Coates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council CA 22-Oct-2004
The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the . .
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. . .
Cited – Broxbourne Borough Council v Robb and Others QBD 27-Jun-2011
The Council applied for the committal of the defendant for an alleged breach of a without notice injunction. Notice of the injunction had been placed at the site, requiring nobody to move caravans onto the land.
Held: The application . .
Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government, Human Rights

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.182482

Forrester v The Secretary Of State For The Environment And South Buckinghamshire District Council: Admn 14 Mar 1997

The applicant appealed dismissal of his appeal against a planning enforcement notice issued by the respondent. He said the change had taken place more than ten years before the notice and so was immune to enforcement proceedings. An earlier decision appeared to establish use at that time.
Held: An issue estoppel was claimed for which there are four requirements: a formal decision on the issue, an issue between the parties to the decision, it must have been a final decision, and of the sort in which an issue estoppel can arise. Those conditions were met. The inspector had failed to recognise that his findings were limited by an issue estoppel, and the matter must be remitted..

Judges:

His Honour Judge Rich

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 271, [1997] EWHC Admin 271

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Porter and Another v Secretary of State for Transport CA 3-Jun-1996
No issue estoppel on land value arose from a previous Secretary’s finding on Lands Tribunal. . .
Cited – Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another CA 24-Oct-1994
The Secretary of State was entitled to a costs order whether or not matter of principle had arisen in the course of a planning appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Estoppel

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.137216

South Buckinghamshire District Council v Flanagan and Another: QBD 16 Jul 2001

The council issued enforcement notices in respect of an unauthorised use of land. An amenity notice was also issued and an appeal was entered. At an interlocutory hearing, the prosecutions were agreed to be dropped, and one of the land users alleged that the council’s solicitor agent agreed also to with draw the enforcement notices. When the council sought to revive the enforcement by way of injunction, the defendant said that they were bound by the agreement of their officer who had the ostensible authority of the council.
Held: Whilst the solicitor would have the general authority of the council, he would need explicit authority to bind the council to withdrawing the enforcement notices which were charges on the land, and would continue to affect the land even after a transfer. He did not have such an explicit authority, and the council could proceed with the enforcement.

Judges:

Harrison J

Citations:

Gazette 26-Jul-2001

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B 215

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Planning, Local Government, Estoppel

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.159505

Regina v Aylesbury Vale District Council and Another; Ex Parte Chaplin and Others: CA 19 Aug 1997

A Local Authority need not give its reasons for granting a planning application, even where a previous and identical application had been refused.

Citations:

Times 19-Aug-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2262, [1998] JPL 49, (1998) 76 P and CR 207, [1997] 3 PLR 55

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1970 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Aylesbury Vale District Council and Another, Ex Parte Chaplin and Others QBD 23-Jul-1996
There was no common law duty to give reasons for a grant of permission after a refusal. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 25-Nov-2008
The claimant appealed refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decisions to sell arms to the Israeli state. He lived in Palestine and said that Israel had destroyed his farm, and that licences broke the criteria under the 2002 Act. He said that . .
Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.86074

Riordan Communications Ltd v South Buckinghamshire District Council: QBD 18 Jan 2000

Where a permission required work to be commenced within a certain time period, and work was indeed commenced, it was not open for the planning authority to suggest that although the work had been begun, there was no intention to complete it, and that accordingly that the permission was revoked. It was held that there was no requirement for any subjective intention to complete the works at the time they were begun.

Citations:

Times 18-Jan-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.88789

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions: 2002

It is important that the need for ‘very special circumstances’ for allowing an exception to development control is not watered down.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2002] JPL 1509

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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.

Planning

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.198577

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 failed to take sufficient account of the unlawfulness fo her occupation. It was important that the concept of exceptional circumstances should not be watered down in this way, and the decision notice was set aside.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 687, [2004] JPL 207, [2003] NPC 68, [2004] 1 P and CR 8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – South Bucks District Council and Another v Porter Admn 17-Sep-2002
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 . .
Cited – Chapman v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 18-Jan-2001
The question arose as to the refusal of planning permission and the service of an enforcement notice against Mrs Chapman who wished to place her caravan on a plot of land in the Green Belt. The refusal of planning permission and the enforcement . .
Cited – Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions 2002
It is important that the need for ‘very special circumstances’ for allowing an exception to development control is not watered down. . .
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? . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – South Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.183722