Regina v Somerset County Council, ARC Southern Limited ex parte Richard Dixon: Admn 18 Apr 1997

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 393, [1998] Env LR 111

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

DisputedRegina v Canterbury Council ex parte Springimage Limited 1993
The court granted locus standi to an applicant to object to a grant of planning permission by way of an application for judicial review. The applicant had an option to purchase land nearby.
David Keene QC said: ‘It seems to me to be clear that . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 29-Nov-2002
The League challenged the respondent’s statement in the Prisons’ Handbook that children held in young offender institutions were not subject to the protection of the 1989 Act.
Held: Neither the Prison Act and Rules excluded the Prison . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Local Government, Planning

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137338

Dido Berkeley v Secretary of State for Environment: Admn 26 Mar 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 328

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

At First InstanceBerkeley 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137273

Terence Geoffrey Best and others v Secretary of State for Environment v Bass Holdings Limited v South Somerset District Council v Tesco Stores Limited: Admn 5 Mar 1997

Counsel for an objector in a planning case submitted that the contents of an incoming letter lying in the Department’s postroom were imputedly known to the Secretary of State.
Held: The judge generously described the submission as having an air of unreality.

Judges:

Mr Lockhart-Mummery QC

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 226

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedBushell v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 7-Feb-1980
Practical Realities of Planning Decisions
The House considered planning procedures adopted on the construction of two new stretches of motorway, and in particular as to whether the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in refusing to allow objectors to the scheme to cross-examine the . .

Cited by:

CitedNational Association of Health Stores and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Department of Health CA 22-Feb-2005
Applications were made to strike down regulations governing the use of the herbal product kava-kava.
Held: The omission of any transtitional provisions had not affected anyone. Nor was the failure to consult as to the possibility of dealing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Administrative

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137171

Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment and Arun: Admn 27 Feb 1997

The appellant sought to quash the decision to confirm an enforcement notice which required him to remove a log cabin from his land. The issue arose whether the cabin was a caravan in law.
Held: It was not a caravan since it was not assembled on site out of two separately constructed sections. Rich QC J stated that ”when assembled’ means when and as assembled in the state where the question of whether or not it is to be deemed a caravan falls to be determined’.
As to whether the structure could meet the mobility requirement: ‘The consideration of the mobility test in paragraph 11 [of the Inspector’s decision] clearly has regard to the movability of the structure from the particular site upon which it had been erected. This, Mr Boyle urges upon me, is an error of law, because, he says, what is to be considered is the nature of the structure rather than the circumstances of the structure in regard to the particular place where is has been erected.
I am uncertain what is the true construction of section 13(1)(b) in this respect. It appeared to me, when I read the paragraph at first, that the phrase ‘when assembled’ is a clear indication that its mobility is to be tested by reference to the circumstances where and how it had in fact been assembled.
Mr Boyle submits and submits persuasively, that there is an alternative meaning of ‘when assembled’, namely in its assembled state. He submits further, that since what is to be considered is whether it is capable of being moved by road from one place to another, it is not to be construed as meaning from the particular place where it has in fact been erected. That I find a highly persuasive argument and one which I would readily accept if I did not immediately recognise the source of the expression ‘one place to another’ which is merely a repetition of the phrase which had been found already in the definition of section 29(1) of the 1960 Act.
I remain, therefore, inclined to the view that the proper construction of the paragraph is that which I first gave it, namely that when assembled means when and as assembled in the state where the question of whether or not it is to be deemed to be a caravan falls to be determined. I readily acknowledge that I may be wrong as to that construction of the paragraph, and it is therefore convenient that I should go on to consider, on the assumption that what is to be considered is the structure independent of its position, whether there would be reason to interfere with the Inspector’s decisions.’

Judges:

Rich QC J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 190, (1997) 74 PandCR 420

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedBrightlingsea Haven Ltd and Another v Morris and others QBD 30-Oct-2008
The caravan park operated under planning consents requiring the caravans to be occupied only during certain months. The defendants had bought their mobile homes from the claimants to occupy full time, and said that the claimants knew of this. The . .
CitedBury Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 12-Aug-2011
The council appealed against the inspector’s decision to quash its enforcement notice. The land-owner occupied a wooden structure which he said was a caravan, but the council said was a residence and an unlawful change of use of agricultural land. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137135

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Barwood Developments Limited: Admn 17 Feb 1997

The landowners appealed a refusal to grant planning permission without there being included a condition which had been attached to an earlier permission, and which remained unfulfilled. The condition was, in effect, to allow sales from one proposed unit of bulky goods only. It was imposed in order to preserve the viability of the town centre. The inspector had looked at this rather narrowly but to such an extent as to invalidate his view. The proportion of bulky goods was not such as to suggest an out of town site.

Judges:

Roy Vandermeer QC

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 151

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Planning

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137096

Regina v London Borough of Merton and Newmont Properties Limited Plc ex parte Dorothy Driver: Admn 21 Jan 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 43

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedRegina v Canterbury Council ex parte Springimage Limited 1993
The court granted locus standi to an applicant to object to a grant of planning permission by way of an application for judicial review. The applicant had an option to purchase land nearby.
David Keene QC said: ‘It seems to me to be clear that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136988

Regina v Leominster District Council ex parte Patricia Pothecary: Admn 16 Jan 1997

Retrospective application for planning rather than enforcement – lawfulness.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 24

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toRegina 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:

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

Planning

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136969

Regina v Bromsgrove District Council ex parte Barratt West Midlands Limited: Admn 17 Dec 1996

The applicant sought to challenge by judicial review the decision of the respondent to grant to itself planning permission for the residential development of land. The land was designated fo removal from the green belt under a Draft Local Plan. The claimant owned a neighbouring site which it said had not been included in the consideration, and which would allow the authority to achieve the target set for new homes by central government. The authority said the objection as not as to the proposed development, but in reality as to the failure to grant permission to the claimant’s for their land.
Held: Although the applicant’s plan had not been presented to the Committee fairly, ‘on the facts, the deficiencies that I have identified could have had no effect on the decision of the Committee, for the reasons that I have given. In these circumstances I do not consider that they are deficiencies which could justify me quashing the decision.’

Judges:

Latham J

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 375

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedStirk and others v Bridgnorth District Council CA 11-Oct-1996
Where a Council was both proposer and judge in respect of a planning application, the obligation to deal thoroughly, consistently and fairly with any objection was enhanced. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136923

Regina v Bassetlaw District Council ex parte Oxby: Admn 11 Dec 1996

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 344

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Bassetlaw District Council, Ex parte Oxby CA 11-Dec-1997
Hobhouse LJ stated that ‘if it has been clearly established . . that a planning consent was improperly and invalidly granted, then it should, in principle, be declared to be void’. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136892

Swan v Secretary of State for Environment; Rhys Evans; Barry George Evans and Rhian Elizabeth Marilyn Jones: Admn 22 Nov 1996

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 266

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedWestminster 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: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136814

Hedges and Hedges v Secretary of State for Environment v East Cambridgeshire District Council: Admn 15 Nov 1996

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 240, [1996] EWHC Admin 239

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe First Secretary of State, Grant Doe, Gregory Yates, Paul Eames v Chichester District Council CA 29-Sep-2004
The appellants challenged a decision to grant planning consent for a private gipsy with mobile homes. The issue was whether the council in refusing permission and in issuing enforcement proceedings, had infringed the applicants human rights. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136787

Sussex Investments Limited v The Secretary Of State For The Environment, Spelthorne Borough Council: Admn 28 Oct 1996

The plaintiff requested that an enforcement notice should be quashed. Two earlier decision notices had already been quashed. At issue was a houseboat constructed on a floating wooden raft. There was an existing use certificate for a houseboat. Was it a houseboat or floating house? The inspector had taken a definition of houseboat from the dictionary. Could it be a boat without having a boat like shape? There was an existing use certificate for a houseboat. The secretary’s decision had taken account of two associated platforms, but since these could be and indeed had been removed, he should have considered the development without the platforms. That consideration was not capable of being extracted from the decisions, and therefore it was quashed.

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 156

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Citing:

AppliedRegina (Westminster City Council) v British Waterways Board HL 1985
The tenant occupied land next to a canal under a lease from the Defendants. The landlord opposed a renewal saying they wished to occupy the land themselves for the purposes of a marina. The tenant said the plan was unrealistic, because it would not . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromSussex Investments Limited v Secretary of State for Environment Spelthorne Borough Council CA 18-Dec-1997
Whether a floating house is a houseboat is not just a question of having a boat-like shape, but is a question of fact and degree. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136704

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 bring them together and by treating them as one unit, he brought the development within the ten year period. The term dwelling-house is not defined in the Act. Can the use of the kind found properly be held to be materially different from the quality of use necessary to constitute use as a single dwelling house? Was this one dwelling house used as ten apartments? The distinction made was valid and the ten year rule correctly applied.

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 146

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171 (b)(2)

Citing:

CitedGravesham 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 . .
CitedVan Dyck v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1993
The court asked whether the four year enforcement rule applied in respect of subdivision of a larger building to create single dwelling houses or applied only in the case of conversion of a single building to single dwelling houses.
Held: It . .

Cited by:

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

Planning

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136694

Thurrock Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Enviroment, Transport and The Regions ex parte Terry Holding: CA 13 Dec 2000

Where the claimant was not out of time to bring an appeal, or he retained the right of appeal, or the works proposed involved were not new, and no amendment or substitute of a new claim was proposed, the court should exercise its discretion to amend the claim form so that an application for permission to appeal under section 289, should proceed as an application under section 288.

Citations:

Times 20-Dec-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 323

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288 289, Civil Procedure Rules Part 1.1(1) 1.2 17.4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135643

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 completed would have a substantial effect on the environment, and an environmental impact assessment should have been first obtained, it was not possible to dispense with that assessment and to deem it to have been supplied where it was thought that the assessment would make no difference, or that the authority or secretary of state in fact had all the information which would have been provided. The Directive prescribed a particular procedure which was to be followed. In the absence of at least substantial compliance, the court should not exercise its discretion to validate retrospectively a breach of the Directive, even if satisfied that the result would have been the same.
Lord Bingham set out the Court’s discretion: ‘Even in a purely domestic context, the discretion of the court to do other than quash the relevant order or action where such excessive exercise of power is shown is very narrow. In the Community context, unless a violation is so negligible as to be truly de minimis and the prescribed procedure has in all essentials been followed, the discretion (if any exists) is narrower still: the duty laid on member states by article 10 of the EC Treaty, the obligation of national courts to ensure that Community rights are fully and effectively enforced, the strict conditions attached by article 2(3) of the Directive to exercise of the power to exempt and the absence of any power in the Secretary of State to waive compliance (otherwise than by way of exemption) with the requirements of the Regulations in the case of any urban development project which in his opinion would be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of the factors mentioned, all point towards an order to quash as the proper response to a contravention such as admittedly occurred in this case.’
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘A court is therefore not entitled retrospectively to dispense with the requirement of an EIA on the ground that the outcome would have been the same or that the local planning authority or Secretary of State had all the information necessary to enable them to reach a proper decision on the environmental issues. Although section 288(5)(b), in providing that the court ‘may’ quash an ultra vires planning decision, clearly confers a discretion upon the court, I doubt whether, consistently with its obligations under European law, the court may exercise that discretion to uphold a planning permission which has been granted contrary to the provisions of the Directive. To do so would seem to conflict with the duty of the court under article 10 (ex article 5) of the EC Treaty to ensure fulfilment of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Treaty. In classifying a failure to conduct a requisite EIA for the purposes of section 288 as not merely non-compliance with a relevant requirement but as rendering the grant of permission ultra vires, the legislature was intending to confine any discretion within the narrowest possible bounds. It is exceptional even in domestic law for a court to exercise its discretion not to quash a decision which has been found to be ultra vires: see Glidewell LJ in Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1990) 61 P and CR 343, 353. [Counsel for the Respondent] was in my opinion right to concede that nothing less than substantial compliance with the Directive could enable the planning permission in this case to be upheld.’

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Bingham

Citations:

Times 07-Jul-2000, [2000] 3 WLR 420, [2001] 2 AC 603, [2000] UKHL 36, [2000] 3 All ER 897

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 85/337/EEC, Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (1988 No 1199), Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First InstanceDido Berkeley v Secretary of State for Environment Admn 26-Mar-1997
. .

Cited by:

CitedBarker v London Borough of Bromley Admn 23-Nov-2001
The claimant challenged the grant of outline permission to develop the Crystal Palace, arguing that no Environmental Assessment had taken place. The need for one depended upon whether the directive had been properly incorporated into English Law. . .
CitedBown v Secretary of State for Transport CA 31-Jul-2003
The appeal concerned the environmental effect of the erection of a bridge being part of a bypass. It was claimed that the area should have been designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA), and that if so it should be treated as such for . .
CitedYounger Homes (Northern) Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 26-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to quash a planning decision on the basis that a screening decision had not been made.
Held: Though the procedures within the authority could have been bettered, there was no formal requirement for a screening option to . .
CitedPascoe v First Secretary of State and others Admn 27-Sep-2006
The claimant challenged a compulsory purchase order made under the 1993 Act on the grounds of underuse of properties in the area.
Held: The respondent’s decision had been made on the basis that there was underuse of a ‘predominant number’ of . .
CitedRegina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex Parte Milne (2) QBD 31-Jul-2000
Developers submitted applications for outline permission for the development of a business park. The applicant sought to quash the grant on the basis that the environmental assessment was insufficiently detailed, and contained reserved matters, and . .
CitedEdwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency HL 16-Apr-2008
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .
CitedBoggis and Another v Natural England CA 20-Oct-2009
Natural England appealed against the quashing of an SSSI.
Held: The notification of an SSSI was not the making of a plan as respects the land affected, but the flagging up of it. The real purpose of the proceedings was to allow the land owners . .
CitedWalton 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 . .
CitedBaker v Police Appeals Tribunal Admn 27-Mar-2013
The claimant a former police constable sought judicial review of a decision made by the tribunal, saying that it had had no jurisdiction to make it. The respondent tribunal, having now accepted that it had not had the power it exercised, being then . .
CitedChampion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .
CitedDover 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, Planning, Administrative

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135054

Regina v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ex parte Lawrie Plantation Services: HL 24 Jun 1999

The word ‘consideration’ when looked at in the context of planning laws was not to be construed narrowly as valuable consideration as would be the case in contract law, but should be construed purposively, looking at the Act. In this case flats used for employees were being used in a way which contravened the purpose of limiting use by transitory visitors.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 12-Jul-1999, [1999] 1 WLR 1415, [1999] 3 ALL ER 929, [1999] UKHL 32

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ex parte Lawrie Plantation Services Admn 28-Feb-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135145

Bayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 13 Jun 2013

Appeal against Inspector’s grant of permission for wind farm after a public inquiry.

Judges:

Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1612 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromBayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others CA 26-Feb-2014
Appeal against dismissal of a challenge to the decision of a planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, who had allowed an appeal by the developer against the planning authority’s refusal of planning permission for the construction of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Utilities

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510835

Regina v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ex parte Lawrie Plantation Services: Admn 28 Feb 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 199

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ex parte Lawrie Plantation Services HL 24-Jun-1999
The word ‘consideration’ when looked at in the context of planning laws was not to be construed narrowly as valuable consideration as would be the case in contract law, but should be construed purposively, looking at the Act. In this case flats used . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.137144

Al Wood-Robinson v Secretary of State for Environment and Council of London Borough of Wandsworth: Admn 3 Apr 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 394

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedNewbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1980
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be . .
CitedWestminster 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: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.138515

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

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

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1967 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.567936

William Morrison Supermarkets plc v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Stockton on Tees Borough Council: QBD 11 May 2000

The applicant appealed a refusal of planning permission for a super-store. The inspector said the store would conflict with the development plan and was on balance disadvantageous. The Secretary of State received further representations and allowed for them, but said they had added nothing new.
Held: The Secretary had failed to take properly into account two considerations, the need for such a store, and the removal of the college from the site. The applicant had also been prejudiced by the reception of the representations.

Citations:

Gazette 11-May-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 331

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90515

St Paul’s Development Ltd v Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council and another: QBD 31 May 2000

The applicant sought residential use of one plot of land. The authority designated it for employment use, and took land out of the Green belt for housing. After a Unitary Development Plan enquiry, the applicant appealed again, and the inspector made certain findings and recommendations. The Authority went ahead with the UDP.
Held: The Authority had erred in publishing the plan without taking on board the inspectors new findings, and should have considered holding a new enquiry.

Citations:

Times 31-May-2000

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 78, 287

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89476

Westminster Bank Limited v The Minister for Housing and Local Government, Beverley Borough Council: HL 1971

The Bank’s application for planning permission was refused on the grounds that the development might prejudice the possible future widening of a road. The local authority could have prescribed a building line in accordance with a provision of the Highways Act, 1959, but in that event would have had to pay compensation for the injurious effect on the bank’s land. The bank sought to quash the refusal.
Held: Although the local authority might have proceeded under the Act of 1959 they were entitled to refuse planning permission on the ground stated, even though the result would be to deprive the bank of compensation.
Where a council has two alternative statutory methods of achieving the same objective, it is entitled to adopt the one which imposes the least burden on the public purse.
Lord Dilhorne said: ‘It was strenuously argued for the appellants that the county council, having failed to prescribe such a line under the Highways Act, could not lawfully achieve the [same] result . . by refusing planning permission for all development within [the relevant area]. The validity of this argument depends on whether the county council had been given by Parliament a choice of methods for preventing such development or were bound to exercise their powers under the Highways Acts. The answer to this question, in my opinion, is to be found in section 220 of the Act of 1962’.
The principle that property rights should only be removed without compensation on the use of clear wording in a statute was explained by Lord Reid saying that it flows from the fact that Parliament seldom intends to do that, and that before attributing such an intention we should be sure that it was really intended. However: ‘When we are seeking the intention of Parliament that may appear from express words but it may also appear by irresistible inference from the statute read as a whole. But I would agree that, if there is a reasonable doubt, the subject should be given the benefit of the doubt.’

Judges:

Lord Dilhorne, Lord Reid

Citations:

[1971] AC 508

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1962 220

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPeacock, Re SC 22-Feb-2012
The defendant had been convicted of drugs offences, and sentenced under the 1994 Act. The gains he had made exceeded his then assets. Later he acquired further property honestly, and the Court now considered whether those assets could be taken to . .
CitedCusack v London Borough of Harrow SC 19-Jun-2013
The landowner practised from property in Harrow. The former garden had now for many years been used as a forecourt open to the highway, for parking cars of staff and clients. Cars crossed the footpath to gain access, and backing out into the road . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another, ex parte Spath Holme Limited HL 7-Dec-2000
The section in the 1985 Act created a power to prevent rent increases for tenancies of dwelling-houses for purposes including the alleviation of perceived hardship. Accordingly the Secretary of State could issue regulations whose effect was to limit . .
CitedThe Public Law Project, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor SC 13-Jul-2016
Proposed changes to the Legal Aid regulations were challenged as being invalid, for being discriminatory. If regulations are not authorised under statute, they will be invalid, even if they have been approved by resolutions of both Houses under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.453068

Devon County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment: 1990

The court was asked whether an Inspector should have had regard to the changes in ministerial policy which were to lead to the introduction of section 54A of the 1990 Act.
Held: Hutchinson J said (obiter): ‘that the Inspector was not obliged to have regard to section 54A before it came into force . . Her correct course, I consider, was to have regard to current statutory provisions and to the guidance to be derived from any circulars published prior to her decision, in particular [Circular] 14/91. One piece of guidance that circular gave was that current circulars already reflected the spirit of the new provision; another was that section 54A was to be brought into effect about two months after July 25 and that ‘In future it will mean that determination is to be in accordance with the plan unless etc’ This language is, I am satisfied, if anything an encouragement not to give effect to changes dependent wholly on the new section: but it is coupled with encouragement to recognise that existing policy is, matters of nuance apart, broadly consistent with that embodied in the section.’

Judges:

Hutchinson J

Citations:

[1990] JPL 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 7-Feb-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a statement and letter by the respondent making a material consideration for planning authorities the intended revocation by the Respondent of Regional Spatial Strategies. The effect would be to allow the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.428514

Peacock Homes Ltd v Secretary of State: CA 1984

Citations:

[1984] JPEL 729

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFirst 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: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.245083

Meyrick Estate Management Ltd and others v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 3 Nov 2005

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2618 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, New Forest National Park (Designation) Order 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPascoe v First Secretary of State and others Admn 27-Sep-2006
The claimant challenged a compulsory purchase order made under the 1993 Act on the grounds of underuse of properties in the area.
Held: The respondent’s decision had been made on the basis that there was underuse of a ‘predominant number’ of . .
Appeal fromMeyrick Estate Management Ltd and others v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 1-Feb-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.235406

Regina v St Edmundsbury Borough Council, ex parte Davidson: QBD 7 Jul 1999

Where two sites had been available for a redevelopment, one site was rejected because an existing lease made it unworkable, and the plan was piece meal, and the other site was taken forward, the applicant for permission could ask the council to reconsider the first site once the lease was surrendered, and the authority was obliged to retrace its steps sequentially through PPG 6 before a permission could be granted.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jul-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 610

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

PPG 6

Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88681

Regina v Lichfield District Council and Another; Ex Parte Lichfield Securities Ltd: CA 30 Mar 2001

The rules required a judge at trial on a judicial review case to consider the issue of whether there had been any undue delay in bringing the case. Nevertheless, where this issue had already been fully argued at a preliminary hearing, the judge could properly exclude a further attempt to argue the point. The judge’s duties as case manager required him to consider whether new material was to be introduced, or a different aspect was to be put, some relevant matter had been overlooked by the first judge, or he had said that it might be reconsidered at trial.

Citations:

Times 30-Mar-2001, Gazette 26-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 304

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Lichfield District Council Christopher John Nanscawen Williams and ex parte Lichfield Securities Limited Admn 1-Apr-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice, Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88537

Regina v Hambleton District Council, Ex Parte Somerfield Stores Ltd: Admn 11 Nov 1998

Permission for an out of town retail centre was set aside, after the council had failed to make proper allowance for need to test for the need for such a centre and to assess properly the impact on the town centre and follow the guidance PPG 6.

Citations:

Gazette 11-Nov-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 1033

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86799

O’Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another: CA 17 Apr 2001

A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The land was held under provisions in the 1938 Act making the sale of any part conditional on the consent of the respondent. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector refused the sale.
Held: The applicant successfully appealed. Having examined in detail the operation of the two inconsistent statutes the majority of the Court of Appeal held that there had been an implied repeal. On the basis that the requirements of the Right to Buy scheme were inconsistent with an impliedly repealed the earlier Act. The later provisions were so inconsistent with an repugnant to the earlier Act that the two could not stand together.
Buxton LJ, dissenting said: ‘The court will not lightly find a case of implied repeal, and the test for it is a high one.’
Laws LJ with whom Thorpe LJ agreed said that the contradiction between the two pieces of legislation must be ‘inescapable’ and that the construction of the later statute must be shown to be the only rational interpretation that is available.

Judges:

Thorpe, Buxton, Laws LJJ

Citations:

Times 17-Apr-2001, Gazette 20-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 499, [2001] NPC 71, [2002] HLR 30, [2001] 16 EGCS 144

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 118, Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte O’Byrne QBD 8-Jun-2000
A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector held that the green belt policy itself would not be affected, but a sale would . .
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte O’Byrne Admn 20-Aug-1999
It could be proper, when ordering for a third party to be joined in an action for judicial review, to order that the original party should not be responsible for the new party’s costs in any event. Such a power could be derived from the overriding . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions ex parte O’Byrne HL 14-Nov-2002
The applicant sought to exercise her right to buy a property she had occupied of her local authority. It was in the green belt, and the authority declined to sell it until they had obtained authorisation for the sale. The authority appealed an order . .
CitedSnelling and Another v Burstow Parish Council ChD 24-Jan-2013
The parties disputed the application and interpretation of ancient statues relating to allotments. The land had been appropriated to allotments under the 1945 Act. The Council had argued that it had a power of sale under the 1908 Act subject to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Planning, Local Government, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85990

Regina (On the Application of Lowther) v Durham County Council and Another: CA 24 May 2001

The landowner sought to alter the fuel it used in a furnace at Thrislington, Durham, to a fuel which was constituted from waste. The council received a second opinion to the effect that the new fuel did not constitute a change in use. The objector appealed.
Held: The council had been properly advised. The fact that a use of material had additional purposes, did not necessarily create a second use for planning permission. It could, but whether it did was a question of fact and degree for the council sub-committee.
Lord Phillips MR referred to the caselaw and said: ‘West Bowers involved deciding whether a particular operation fell into one or both of two specific categories of operation. On the facts the Court of Appeal held that it fell into both. There is no difficulty in following the logic of this conclusion. The facts were such that an objective onlooker when asked what the operation involved might have said ‘digging a reservoir’ or ‘recovering gravel’ or both. The operation had two physical aspects the one the corollary of the other; a hole was dug; gravel was removed. Each aspect fell into a different planning category.
West Bowers recognised that one indivisible process could amount, for planning purposes, to two activities. It does not follow that the different aspects of a process always fall to be categorised as different operations or uses of land for planning purposes. Lord Kingsland did not suggest that disposing of petcoke was a distinct use of the land at Thrislington, although petcoke is a by-product of the oil industry that has all the features of waste, save that its qualities as a source of energy have become appreciated so that it is universally burnt for energy recovery. Lord Kingsland’s contention that disposing of waste is always a separate land use, regardless of the nature or manner of disposal, cannot be derived from West Bowers.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jun-2001, Times 22-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 781, [2002] 1 PandCR 283

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ConsideredWest Bowers Farm Products v Essex County Council CA 1985
Farmers sought to construct a reservoir for irrigation. To create the reservoir they would have to excavate substantial volumes of sand and gravel which would be sold on. The appellants contended that the extraction of the sand and gravel was an . .

Cited by:

CitedRoberts and Another v South Gloucestershire Council CA 7-Nov-2002
The landowner appealed against the compensation awarded for the compulsory acquisition of his land for use as a road. The owners had been compensated only for its agricultural value, but said that it should have allowed for its value for minerals . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85994

Regina v Tandridge District Council, ex parte Al-Fayed: QBD 27 Jan 1999

A local authority should give great weight to authoritative scientific advice given by statutory bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive and National Radiological Protection Board as to the safety of proposed developments.

Citations:

Times 28-Jan-1999, Gazette 03-Mar-1999, Gazette 27-Jan-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 31

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Appealed toRegina v Tandbridge District Council and Another, Ex Parte Al-Fayed CA 1-Feb-2000
A planning authority disallowed an objection to the erection of a mobile telephone transmitter. Although there had been an omission in the procedure followed by the council, it was clear that it had in fact considered the evidence put forward by the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Tandbridge District Council and Another, Ex Parte Al-Fayed CA 1-Feb-2000
A planning authority disallowed an objection to the erection of a mobile telephone transmitter. Although there had been an omission in the procedure followed by the council, it was clear that it had in fact considered the evidence put forward by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85586

North Devon District Council v Secretary of State for Environment, D Rottenbury B E Rottenbury: QBD 12 May 1998

A mandatory agricultural occupancy condition was not subject to a continuous breach when cottages were occupied over summer by visitors rather than by agricultural workers as required by the permission.

Citations:

Times 12-May-1998, Gazette 28-May-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 458

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Agriculture, Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84341

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 issued an enforcement notice alleging a material change of use from residential to mixed use of residential and as ten units of holiday accommodation. If the change of use of each of the units was a change of use to a single dwelling-house the enforcement notice was not served within the four year time-limit in section 171B(2) of the Act.
Held: The conversion of an outhouse on a country estate into ten separate dwellings was not one single conversion with ten year use limitation, but the four year limit applied.
Nourse LJ said: ‘In my judgment, McCullough J’s approach to the meaning of ‘dwellinghouse’ was entirely correct. Although we were not referred to any of the many other decisions on the meaning of that word in other areas of the law, I am confident that an examination of them would reveal no requirement that before a building can be so described it must be occupied as the permanent home of one or more persons or the like. Nor do 10 self-contained units of residential accommodation which would otherwise be properly described as 10 single dwelling houses cease to be used as such because they are managed as a whole for the commercial purpose of holiday or other temporary lettings. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Secretary of State applied an incorrect test in this case and that if he had applied the correct test, he could only have properly concluded that the 10 units are being used as 10 single dwellinghouses within section 171B(2) of the Act.’

Judges:

Nourse, Pill, Thorpe LJJ

Citations:

Times 18-Feb-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 235, [1998] JPL 877, (1999) 77 P and CR 114, [1998] 2 PLR 65, [1998] NPC 20

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171B(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedGravesham 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 . .
Appeal fromT 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 . .
CitedVan Dyck v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1993
The court asked whether the four year enforcement rule applied in respect of subdivision of a larger building to create single dwelling houses or applied only in the case of conversion of a single building to single dwelling houses.
Held: It . .
ApprovedGravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment 1984
A building had been erected under permission for a ‘weekend and holiday chalet’. In response to an enforcement notice served in relation to an extension to it, the Appellant submitted that the extension was permitted development because the building . .

Cited by:

CitedMoore v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 18-Sep-2012
An enforcement notice had been issued alleging an unlawful change of use without planning permission of the Appellant’s property from a C3 dwelling to use as commercial leisure accommodation. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83819

Kent County Council v Curtis: QBD 24 Jun 1998

Advertisements placed by a roadway outside a shop were properly found by magistrates not to cause an obstruction, nor to be unsafe or any danger. Magistrates were wrong to seek to alter their decision when stating their case for the divisional court.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Jun-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 639

Links:

Bailii

Planning, Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82741

J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v South Gloucestershire District Council and Others: CA 29 Mar 2001

Where there was an agreement between an applicant and the planning authority under section 106 of the new Act, with respect the undertaking of work in return for the grant of planning permission, there was no requirement for there to be a direct link between the development and the works. If the agreement was entered into in order to restrict or regulate the development or use of land then it was vires.

Citations:

Times 02-Apr-2001, Gazette 17-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 450

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 106

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
CitedNewbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1980
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82442

Hughes v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another: CA 19 Jan 2000

A house had been unused since 1960, and was bought in 1990. It had become delapidated and the applicant wished to rebuild. The applicant was entitled to permission only if he could show the original residential use had not been lost.
Held: The residential use had been abandoned. The test was an objective one, looking at the intention of the owner, the condition of the building, the period of non-use, and whether there had been any other intervening use. ‘Evaluating all four factors, the inspector was, in my judgment, entitled to conclude, as she did, that residential user had been abandoned. That may not have been the intention of Mr Giddings any more than it was the intention of Mr Hughes; but the intentions of the site’s successive owners, although relevant, were not and could not be decisive, because at the end of the day the test must be the view to be taken by a reasonable man with knowledge of all of the relevant circumstances. ‘

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Thorpe LJ, Mance Lj

Citations:

Gazette 03-Feb-2000, Times 18-Feb-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 506

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHartley v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1970
A petrol station operated with an area to display and sell cars. Sales stopped in 1961 when the owner died. His son was thought too young and inexperienced son to be involved in car sales. Sales were resumed in 1965 when a new owner acquired the . .
CitedCastell-y-Mynach Estate v Secretary of State for Wales QBD 1985
A building ceased to be occupied as a dwelling in 1965, and then over a period of years became nearly derelict. Even so, the evidence showed that at no time had the owners intended abandoning the rights of existing use, despite their decision not to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81524

E v Camden London Borough Council, Ex Parte Williams: QBD 6 Jun 2000

Whether a delay in appealing against a planning decision became so protracted as to bar the challenge was a question of fact according to the circumstances of each case. The six weeks period mentioned in R v Ceredigion County Council ex p McKeown cannot be universally applied. The person may not learn of the permission for some time.

Citations:

Times 06-Jun-2000

Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80200