Category: Planning

Welwyn Hatfield Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: CA 29 Jan 2010

The land owner had received planning consent to erect a barn. Instead he constructed a house, but disguised it.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Once the house had been used as such for four years, the authority was obliged to issue the certificate of lawful use even though the house had been built under a deception. Upon completion, the house had no use. On occupation a change of use occurred under section 171B. Once the four-year time limit was found to apply, it displaced the ten-year time limit even if the situation could be analysed by another route as one to which the longer time limit also applied. Section 171B(2) applied on the basis that use as a dwelling house as from 9 August 2002 was a change of use either from the use permitted by the planning permission or from a period of ‘no use’ which the court identified as occurring between completion of the building and its residential occupation.
Mummery LJ expressed puzzlement at: ‘the total absence of argument from the council, or the Secretary of State, about the effect of Mr Beesley’s reprehensible conduct in obtaining planning permission by deception and in failing to implement it’ and ‘it is very difficult to believe that Parliament could have intended that the certificate procedure in section 191 should be available to someone who has dishonestly undermined the legislation by obtaining a planning permission which would never have been granted if the council had been told the truth’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Richards

Citations:

Times 09-Feb-2010, [2010] EWCA Civ 26, [2010] PTSR 1296, [2010] 5 EG 113, [2010] NPC 10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171B(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Welwyn Hatfield Council, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 7-Apr-2009
The council appealed against the decision of the inspector that the land-owner should be granted a certificate of lawful development.
Held: Collins J over-turned the inspector’s decision. He viewed the building as the permitted barn, but went . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council SC 6-Apr-2011
The land-owner had planning permission to erect a barn, conditional on its use for agricultural purposes. He built inside it a house and lived there from 2002. In 2006. He then applied for a certificate of lawful use. The inspector allowed it, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396409

Usk Valley Conservation Group and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Brecon Beacons National Park and Others: Admn 27 Jan 2010

The claimants challenged the validity of a planning permission allowing the transfer of a camping site permission out of a flood zone.
Held: Ouseley J considered whether the cost of compensation on the amendment of a permission was a material consideration, saying: ‘An expedient decision would, to my mind, necessarily require attention to be paid to the advantages and disadvantages of taking one or other or none of the available steps under section 102. These advantages and disadvantages should not be confined to those which the subject of the notice would face; they should be measured against the advantages and disadvantages to the public interest at large, including the costs and effectiveness of the various possibilities. The question of whether the cost to the public is worth the gain to the public is, I would have thought, the obvious way of testing expediency. At least, it is difficult to see that expediency could be tested without consideration of that factor.’

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 71 (Admin), [2010] 2 P and CR 14, [2010] NPC 9

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 102

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council SC 18-Jul-2012
The Council had granted planning permission for four student housing units. The Executive complained that they were too near to a liquified gas storage depot. The Court was now asked whether the impact of any compensation which might be payable on . .
See Also – Usk Valley Conservation Group, Regina (on The Application of) v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Admn 18-Feb-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.395051

Mid Suffolk District Council v Clarke: CA 15 Feb 2006

The council had taken proceedings against a farmer whose production of swill, for feeding to pigs, was emitting a smell which local residents found scarcely tolerable. Rather than suffer the making of an injunction against him, the farmer had undertaken not to cause a public nuisance at his premises. The duration of the undertaking was not limited in time. Thereafter the council took committal proceedings in which the farmer admitted that he had broken the undertaking by the continued emission of smells. The judge duly fined him but then decided to release him from part of his undertaking by limiting its further duration to two years.
Held: Allowing the Council’s appeal, if a judge concluded that a party’s undertaking given to the court and embodied in a final order was inappropriate, it was preferable for the matter to be dealt with by an appeal rather than by the judge himself seeking to release the undertaking.

Judges:

Lord Justice Gage Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Lloyd

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 71, Times 10-Mar-2006, [2007] 1 WLR 980

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Mid Suffolk District Council v Clarke QBD 9-Feb-2006
. .
Cited – Kensington Housing Trust v Oliver CA 1997
After the tenant caused flooding of flats underneath her flat. As a result the landlord had obtained an order for possession of it but it had undertaken to the court to offer the tenant specified alternative accommodation at basement or ground floor . .
See Also – Mid Suffolk District Council v Clarke QBD 7-Apr-2005
. .

Cited by:

Valuable guidance – Birch v Birch SC 26-Jul-2017
The parties, on divorcing had a greed, under court order that W should obtain the release of H from his covenants under the mortgage of the family home. She had been unable to do so, and sought that order to be varied to allow postponement of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Agriculture, Planning, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.239895

Rastrum Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: CA 12 Nov 2009

The company appealed against a refusal of a certificate of lawful use.
Held: Appeal allowed, and Inspector’s decision restored.

Judges:

Sullivan, Ward, Etherton LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1340

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 192

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Rastrum Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 4-Feb-2009
The Court allowed an appeal by the respondents against a decision of an Inspector appointed by the appellant, dismissing the first respondent’s appeal under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the interested party’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384360

Lidl UK Gmbh v The Scottish Ministers and Another: SCS 18 Oct 2006

The appellants challenged a decision of the responders to refuse planning permission for a retail unit to be developed on a site outside the Irvine town centre. The relevant provision in the local plan required the sequential approach to be adopted to proposals for new retail development out with the town centre boundaries. Among the criteria that had to be satisfied was the requirement that no suitable sites were available, or could reasonably be made available, in or on the edge of existing town centres. In other words, town centre sites were to be considered first before edge of centre or out of town sites. The reporter held that the existing but soon to be vacated Lidl town centre site was suitable for the proposed development, although it was clear as a matter of fact that this site could not accommodate it.
Held: The question for a planning authority applying policy guidelines as to the requrement to prefer town centre development is whether an alternative site is suitable for the proposed development, not whether the proposed development can be altered or reduced so that it can be made to fit an alternative site.

Judges:

Lord Glennie

Citations:

[2006] ScotCS CSOH – 165

Links:

ScotC, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council SC 21-Mar-2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.245476

Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment: QBD 1982

The Secretary of State could find that a building built under a permission for a weekend and holiday chalet, but to be used only in summer, was a dwelling house. The distinctive characteristic of a dwellinghouse is its ability to afford to those who use it the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence. McCullough J rejected the suggestion that a building which had that characteristic ceased to be a dwellinghouse because it was occupied only for a part or parts of the year or at infrequent or irregular intervals or by a series of different persons. With no statutory definition of a dwelling house it was a building affording the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence. The actual use of the building is not itself conclusive. A building which had that characteristic did not cease to be such for being occupied only for part of the year or intervals or by different persons. The Secretary argued: ‘(i) Neither the description of the building in the permission as a ‘weekend holiday chalet’ nor the imposition of a condition restricting its use to certain months of the year has any effect on the question whether the building erected in pursuance of the permission is a ‘dwelling-house’ for General Development Order purposes. (ii) The dictionary definition of ‘dwelling-house’ is not the criterion. (iii) The criterion is whether, as a question of fact, the building is constructed or adapted for use as a dwelling-house as normally understood, that is to say, as a building that provides for the main activities of ‘day-to-day domestic existence.’ (iv) The absence of a bathroom and inside toilet does not necessarily prevent a building that is used for residential purposes from being a dwelling-house. (v) Having regard to the accommodation and facilities provided, the building, as originally constructed, could be said to provide for the main activities of ‘day-to-day domestic existence’.’
The court did not define ‘dwelling house’ for the purposes of the Order. It was helpful to consider a number of buildings that quite clearly were dwelling houses and others equally clearly that were not, and to see whether this threw up any indication of what ought and what ought not to be taken into account. The court set out cases where what was clearly a dwelling house when erected was then left unoccupied, made unlawful to occupy or put to other than ordinary domestic use in a number of ways. One example was something which even after a change in the manner of use would still remain a dwelling house: ‘Take a holiday cottage subject to time-share with a number of owners each enjoying the right to occupy it for two particular weeks each year, that would still be a dwelling-house.’ This contrasted with hotels, holiday camps and hostels which would not be dwelling houses. The characteristic common to those which were dwelling houses were ‘all are buildings that ordinarily afford the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence’.
That was not the totality of the test any more than did the Secretary of State had in the decision letter which Mr Justice McCullough was examining. It is not merely that the building should have been created so that it ordinarily afforded the facilities required for day to day private domestic existence, but it was also necessary that it should be so used.

Judges:

McCullough J

Citations:

[1982] 47 P and CR 142, Times 10-Nov-1982

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning General Order 1977 (1977 No 289) Sch 1 Class 1 Art 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – T A J Moore v The Secretary of State for the Environment, The New Forest District Council Admn 25-Oct-1996
The applicant sought to quash an enforcement notice, regarding a change of use from residential to mixed residential and holiday accommodation. The change had taken in respect of several units over a long period of time. The inspector sought to . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of Lee) v First Secretary of State and another Admn 3-Sep-2003
The landowner had placed two caravans within a barn, and occupied them. The planning authority issued enforcement proceedings, and he sought a certificate of lawful development.
Held: The fact that the caravans were not connected to the . .
Overruled – Pennell v Payne CA 1995
The operation of the break clause in a lease will (in the absence of provision to the contrary) have the effect of terminating not just the lease but also the underlease, and any inferior sub-tenancies. . .
Cited – Moore v Secretary of State for Environment and New Forest District Council CA 18-Feb-1998
The outbuildings of a large country house had been converted into ten single self-contained units of residential accommodation for the purpose of holiday lettings. Nine of the units were in use by May 1991. In May 1995 the local planning authority . .
Cited – Baker v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions Admn 26-Jan-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.182320

Varey v United Kingdom: ECHR 30 Jan 2001

The court dismissed the application on the announcement of a friendly settlement, the government of the UK having paid damages and costs to a gypsy family who had been repeatedly denied a right to create a caravan site on land they had purchased despite the evident need for land for such purposes, and the decreasing damage to the green belt. The claim had been a preliminary finding of an infringement of the applicant’s article 13(1) rights.

Citations:

Times 30-Jan-2001, 26662/95, [2000] ECHR 692

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Discrimination, Human Rights, Planning

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.90127

Crane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 23 Feb 2015

‘the weight to be given to the ‘policies for housing development’ in [a] core strategy would, in the circumstances of that case, be ‘greatly reduced’ by the absence of a five-year supply of housing land. However, the weight to be given to such policies is not dictated by government policy in the NPPF. Nor is it, or could it be, fixed in the case law of the Planning Court. It will vary according to the circumstances, including, for example, the extent to which the policies actually fall short of providing for the required five-year supply, and the prospect of development soon coming forward to make up the shortfall.’

Judges:

Lindblom J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 425 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Planning

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.543107

Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 19 Mar 2014

The company appealed against rejection of its appeal against the inspector’s refusal of its planning application for the construction of 91 new homes.

Judges:

Lindblom J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 754 (Admin), [2017] PTSR 1283

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Planning

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.522660

Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 27 Nov 2013

If a planning policy is deemed to be ‘out-of-date’ it was in practice to be given minimal weight, in effect ‘disapplied’.

Judges:

Lewis J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Planning

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.518476

Rastrum Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 4 Feb 2009

The Court allowed an appeal by the respondents against a decision of an Inspector appointed by the appellant, dismissing the first respondent’s appeal under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the interested party’s decision to refuse to grant a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development to the first respondent under section 192 of the Act.

Judges:

Sir George Newman

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 184 (Admin), [2009] NPC 23, [2009] 6 EG 101, [2009] JPL 1159

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Rastrum Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 12-Nov-2009
The company appealed against a refusal of a certificate of lawful use.
Held: Appeal allowed, and Inspector’s decision restored. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.381459

Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council and Another: Admn 5 Nov 2009

The claimant sought to have development stopped on a site which it said was too near a site for the storage of liquid petroleum gas.
Held: Collins J allowed the claim and granted declaratory relief that Wolverhampton had failed to: (i) notify the HSE that it was minded to grant permission; (ii) notify the HSE that it had granted permission; (iii) give an adequate summary of its reasons for granting permission; and (iv) provide a summary of relevant policies when granting permission.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2688 (Admin), [2009] 45 EG 105, [2010] PTSR (CS) 1, [2009] NPC 125

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/743), European Council Directive 96/82/EC

Citing:

Applied – Alnwick District Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and others Admn 4-Aug-1999
The Council had given planning consent for a superstore, not appreciating the proposed size, which would contravene national planning policy. In the face of the council’s objections, the Secretary of State revoked the permission. The substantial . .
Cited – Vasiliou v Secretary of State for Transport CA 1991
When considering the revocation or modification of a planning consent, any impact on an interested party is a relevant consideration. A planning permission should not have been granted closing a public road without considering its adverse effect on . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council and Victoria Hall Ltd CA 30-Jul-2010
The Council had granted planning pemission for four blocks of student accomodation. The Executive objected that it had not dealt properly with the issue the proximity of a liquified petroleum gas storage depot.
Held: Though there had been some . .
At first instance – The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council SC 18-Jul-2012
The Council had granted planning permission for four student housing units. The Executive complained that they were too near to a liquified gas storage depot. The Court was now asked whether the impact of any compensation which might be payable on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.377566

London Borough of Camden v Backer and Aird: CA 1982

The land-owner came to use the second storey of a house as a single dwelling-house where the planning permission for that second storey was conditional on its use only as storage ancillary to residential use of the remainder of the premises. The Court was asked whether that breach was fell within the section. Did ‘it relate to a breach of planning control consisting in: ‘the making without planning permission of a change of use of any building to use as a single dwelling house’.
Held: The breach was covered by the words of section 87(3)(c) and the fact that the change of use was also a failure to comply with a condition did not override that. ‘unlike other changes of use, householders who change the use of a building to that of a single dwelling-house should only be vulnerable to enforcement action if it is instituted within four years from the change.’

Judges:

Waller LJ, Donaldson LJ, Sir David Cairns

Citations:

[1982] JPL 516

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1971 87(3)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – First Secretary of State v Arun District Council and Another CA 10-Aug-2006
The land-owner had received planning permission to construct an extension to her home subject to a condition that it could be occupied only by a dependant relative. In 1996, she let it to students in breach of the condition. In 1996, te council took . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.245082

Majed, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Camden and Another: CA 6 Jul 2009

Application for judicial review of a planning permission granted by the respondent to the interested party for the erection of a first floor side extension to the interested party’s home.

Judges:

Arden, Moore-Bick, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1029, [2010] JPL 621

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375978

South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell and Others: CA 31 Oct 2005

Where proceedings were brought against unnamed persons and interim relief was granted to restrain specified acts, a person became both a defendant and a person to whom the injunction was addressed by doing one of those acts.
As to capturing people as defendants by operation of the definition of ‘persons unknown’, Sir Anthony Clarke MR explained: ‘In each of these appeals the appellant became a party to the proceedings when she did an act which brought her within the definition of defendant in the particular case. Thus in the case of WM she became a person to whom the injunction was addressed and a defendant when she caused her three caravans to be stationed on the land on 20 September 2004. In the case of KG she became both a person to whom the injunction was addressed and the defendant when she caused or permitted her caravans to occupy the site. In neither case was it necessary to make her a defendant to the proceedings later.’

Judges:

The Master of the Rolls,
(Sir Anthony Clarke),
Lord Justice Rix,
Lord Justice Moore-Bick

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1429, [2006] 1 WLR 658

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .
Cited – Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd and Another v Unknown Persons CA 5-Mar-2020
‘This appeal concerns the way in which, and the extent to which, civil proceedings for injunctive relief against ‘persons unknown’ can be used to restrict public protests.’ . .
Cited – Boyd and Another v Ineos Upstream Ltd and Others CA 3-Apr-2019
Appeal from injunctions to Ineos Upstream Limited and various subsidiaries of the Ineos Gropu as well as certain individuals. The injunctions were granted against persons unknown who are thought to be likely to become protesters at sites selected by . .
Cited – London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and Another v Persons Unknown and Others CA 13-Jan-2022
Cases in which local authorities have sought interim and sometimes then final injunctions against unidentified and unknown persons who may in the future set up unauthorised encampments on local authority land. These persons have been collectively . .
Cited – MBR Acres Ltd and Others v McGivern QBD 2-Aug-2022
Contempt Procedures Not to be abused
Reasons for dismissal of contempt application.
Held: The contempt application against Ms McGivern was dismissed and certified as being totally without merit.
The court does not grant injunctions to parties to litigation to be used as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.470692

In re St Laurence, Alvechurch: ConC 19 Jun 2003

The incumbent and churchwardens applied for a faculty for the creation of a car park and church hall. Planning permission had already been granted.
Held: The Consistory Court could assume that once planning permission had been granted, the elements of the decision taken into account in that decision should be taken to have been correctly assessed. There remained issues as to the pastoral consequences, and a proposal was still required. The assumption might be displaced if it could be shown that the planners had failed to give appropriate attention to the special quality of the building.

Judges:

Charles Mynor, Chancellor

Citations:

Times 04-Sep-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Ecclesiastical, Planning

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.186102

Cheshire East Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 25 Feb 2015

Judges:

Lang DBE J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 410 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
At first instance – 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: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.543522

Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 30 Jan 2015

Judges:

Supperstone J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 132 (Admin), [2015] CN 177

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
At first instance – 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 – 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: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.542215

William Davis Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Governments and Another: Admn 11 Oct 2013

One of the grounds of refusal was based on a policy E20 the effect of which was generally to exclude development in a so-called ‘green wedge’ area defined on the proposals map. Lang J recorded an argument for the developer that the policy should have been regarded as a ‘relevant policy for the supply of housing’ under paragraph 49 because ‘the restriction on development potentially affects housing development’. The judge rejected this argument summarily, saying ‘policy E20 does not relate to the supply of housing and therefore is not covered by paragraph 49’

Judges:

Lang DBE J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Planning

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.516441

Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others: CA 23 Jun 2008

The court considered the rejection of an application for temporary planning consent by the gipsies to place a caravan on land in a green belt.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There was a requirement to balance the need to maintain the green belt and to recognise the particular human rights consequences of depriving somebody of what had become their home in circumtances where there was a particular shortage of appropriate housing. The loss of a home could be a very special factor allowing a consent which would otherwise be a breach of the green belt.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke, MR, Carnwath LJ and Wilson LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 692, Times 01-Jul-2008, [2009] PTSR 19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Wychavon District Council of Civic Centre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others Admn 19-Dec-2007
The court quashed a grant of temporary planning permission to the applicant gypsies to stand a caravan on a green field site. . .

Cited by:

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

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.270372

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.

Citations:

Ind Summary 24-Oct-1994, [1994] 64 PandCR 120

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Environment and Another QBD 7-Jan-1994
A Local Authority may not rely upon an unimplemented EC directive to make a claim, since it was not an individual. . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Bolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others No 2 HL 17-Jul-1995
The applicants had been successful in their appeal against a refusal of planning permission. The Secretary of State had awarded himself and the applicants their costs against the Council. The Council asked the House to give guidance on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Planning

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.90634

Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Environment and Another: QBD 7 Jan 1994

A Local Authority may not rely upon an unimplemented EC directive to make a claim, since it was not an individual.

Citations:

Times 07-Jan-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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, Local Government, European

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.90636

Vasiliou v Secretary of State for Transport: CA 1991

When considering the revocation or modification of a planning consent, any impact on an interested party is a relevant consideration. A planning permission should not have been granted closing a public road without considering its adverse effect on the business of traders relying on it. In the absence of a stopping-up or diversion order, the grant of planning permission does not of itself affect or override any existing rights of property or over a highway On a stopping up order the Secretary of State cannot go behind the planning authority’s decision on the planning issues. It remains, however, a matter for the judgment of the Secretary of State.

Judges:

Nicholls LJ

Citations:

[1991] 2 All ER 77

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Moto Hospitality Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport CA 26-Jul-2007
The company sought damages to its business on a motorway service station when works closed an access road.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal succeeded. A claim for compensation under section 10 had not been established, at least in respect . .
Cited – Alnwick District Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and others Admn 4-Aug-1999
The Council had given planning consent for a superstore, not appreciating the proposed size, which would contravene national planning policy. In the face of the council’s objections, the Secretary of State revoked the permission. The substantial . .
Cited – Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council and Another Admn 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought to have development stopped on a site which it said was too near a site for the storage of liquid petroleum gas.
Held: Collins J allowed the claim and granted declaratory relief that Wolverhampton had failed to: (i) notify . .
Cited – The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council and Victoria Hall Ltd CA 30-Jul-2010
The Council had granted planning pemission for four blocks of student accomodation. The Executive objected that it had not dealt properly with the issue the proximity of a liquified petroleum gas storage depot.
Held: Though there had been some . .
Cited – The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council SC 18-Jul-2012
The Council had granted planning permission for four student housing units. The Executive complained that they were too near to a liquified gas storage depot. The Court was now asked whether the impact of any compensation which might be payable on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages, Planning

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.259676

Dyer v Dorset County Council: CA 1988

The court discussed what was meant by the curtilage of the appellant’s house: ‘Thus the sole issue is whether Mr Dyer’s house is or is not within the curtilage of another building or, by the application of section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978, of more than one other building. This is a question of fact and degree and thus primarily a matter for the trial judge, provided that he has correctly directed himself on the meaning of ‘curtilage’ in its statutory context.’ and ‘Parliament has not seen fit to define the word ‘curtilage’ in this statutory context and we have to regard to dictionaries and to such authorities as to its meaning as existed in 1980 and 1984.’ and ‘There are also a number of ecclesiastical authorities to the effect that a curtilage must be near a house and must ‘belong’ to it …’ ”Curtilage’ seems always to involve some small and necessary extension to that to which the word is attached.’ Nourse LJ: ‘I agree. The derivations mentioned in the Oxford English Dictionary (French, courtil – a little court or garth; Italian, corte; Mediaeval Latin, cortile or curtile – a court or yard) rather suggest that ‘curtilage’ started life as a word describing a small area enclosed by walls or buildings, the smallness of the area being emphasised by the diminutive suffix ‘age’, as in village. The need for physical enclosure of the area having disappeared in current usage, the dictionary definition, which I quote in full, is for most present-day purposes adequate.’ and ‘While making every allowance for the fact that the size of a curtilage may vary somewhat with the size of the house or building, I am in no doubt that the 100 acre park on the edge of which Mr Dyer’s house now stands cannot possibly be said to form part and parcel of Kingston Maurward House, far less of any of the other college buildings. Indeed, a park of this size is altogether in excess of anything which could properly be described as the curtilage of a mansion house, an area beyond which no conveyancer would extend beyond that occupied by the house, the stables and other outbuildings, the garden and the rough grass up to the ha-ha, if there was one.’ Mann LJ: ‘The word ‘curtilage’ is a term of art and, in employing it, the draftsman and Parliament must have had regard to its meaning as such a term. Its meaning as a term was discussed in Metheun-Campbell. It appears from that decision that the meaning of the word ‘curtilage’ is constrained to a small area about a building. The size of the area appears to be a question of fact and degree.’

Judges:

Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR, Nourse LJ, Mann LJ

Citations:

[1988] 3 WLR 213, [1989] 1 QB 346

Statutes:

Interpretation Act 1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Jepson v Gribble 1876
A house occupied by the medical superintendent of an asylum fronted on to a public road and had access from the back to the asylum itself, although it was very much closer than to the asylum than are the lecturers’ cottages to any other college . .
Cited – Methuen-Campbell v Walters CA 1978
The curtilage of a house is narrowly confined to the area surrounding it and did not extend to a paddock. Buckley LJ said: ‘In my judgment, for one corporeal hereditament to fall within the curtilage of another, the former must be so intimately . .

Cited by:

Applied – Skerritts of Nottingham Limited v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions, Harrow London Borough Council Admn 22-Mar-1999
The curtilage of a building is a small area around it. An assessment of whether a separate structure was within the curtilage which did not consider the distance between the various buildings must be incorrect in that it had omitted an essential . .
Cited – Crockett v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Admn 24-Oct-2002
The applicant built a shed on land behind his bungalow, but without planning consent. The planning authority issued enforcement proceedings. He appealed, contending that it fell within the Order. The inspector visited the property, and decided that . .
Cited – Lowe v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 6-Feb-2003
The landowner appealed against an enforcement notice issued with respect to a chain link fence erected along the driveway of his grade II listed building. He said the drive was not part of the curtilage of the building.
Held: The inspector had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Land

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.181012

Trim v Sturminster Rural District Council: CA 1938

The ‘appurtenances’ of a house are confined to the curtilage of the house.

Citations:

[1938] 2 KB 508

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Methuen-Campbell v Walters CA 1978
The curtilage of a house is narrowly confined to the area surrounding it and did not extend to a paddock. Buckley LJ said: ‘In my judgment, for one corporeal hereditament to fall within the curtilage of another, the former must be so intimately . .
Cited – Lowe v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 6-Feb-2003
The landowner appealed against an enforcement notice issued with respect to a chain link fence erected along the driveway of his grade II listed building. He said the drive was not part of the curtilage of the building.
Held: The inspector had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.195574

Odhams Walk Residents’ Management Ltd v Westminster City Council: Admn 13 Jul 2009

Challenge by way of judicial review to the policy of the Westminster City Council that only studio-sized accommodation will be made available in future to housing management organisations like the claimant to offer to their staff.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1712 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Planning, Housing

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.361464

The London Borough of Barnet v Secretary of State for the Home Department, McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd: Admn 23 Aug 2001

The applicant sought to quash a decision letter. It had wanted to create a development, but the local authority considered it had not met the requirement to include affordable housing. It was agreed that a need existed for affordable housing, and the Inspector considered the development large enough to be required to make provision. The appellant argued that the high development costs associated with the site would make such provision uneconomic. The inspector failed to account for how he had allowed for these factors. He should also have considered requiring a contribution from the Local Authority to the costs.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Stanley Burton

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 642

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288, PPG3: Housing (2000)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, ex parte McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd HL 14-Nov-1991
A Local Authority was not able to impose charge for inquiries as to speculative developments and similar proposals, or for consultations, and pre-planning advice. There was no statutory authority for such a charge, and it was therefore unlawful and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.166141

Ceredigion County Council v National Assembly for Wales, and E D Harrison: Admn 21 Sep 2001

The Council appealed a decision of the Assembly extending time for compliance with an enforcement notice from two months to two years. They believed that an error of law had occurred insofar as a 1973 permission had expired. The only works undertaken within the initial five year period were of demolition. The Act as it was required some form of construction, but that Act was amended to include works of demolition.
Held: The inspector had erred in including preparatory works of demolition within possible works of construction. It was wrong to have recourse to the 1991 Act in construing earlier legislation. The statutory provision in issue in London v Marks and Spencer was materially different, the House had not held that ‘demolition’ could be ‘construction’.

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 694

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 56, Planning and Compensation Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – London County Council v Marks and Spencer Ltd CA 1952
While demolition works as such did not require planning permission, works which comprised demolition, site clearance and the erection of a new building on the site were operations for which planning permission would have been required but for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.166284

St Albans City and District Council v Secretary Of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 20 May 2009

The Council challenged the respondent’s revision of the Area plan, saying that he had failed as required to conduct an environmental assessment.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1280 (Admin), [2010] JPL 70

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2001/42/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, European

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347246