Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999

The fact that a new product was made on agricultural land from produce grown elsewhere on the land did not make that production process non-agricultural. The making of wine is capable of being agricultural use, and being thus free from planning control. The court considered the Secretary of State’s reaction to the judges comments at first instance on planning conditions: ‘The Secretary of State takes exception to those comments by the judge. We have not heard full argument on those points having indicated to the parties that we were not prepared to do so in the context of this appeal. The judge had in front of him argument in relation to what was a positive rather than a negative condition and so his comments in relation to negative conditions were not necessary for his decision. . . . We do not regard it as appropriate to lengthen our judgments by a consideration of a difficult question which has already troubled the House of Lords and the resolution of which was not necessary for the judge nor is it for us.’

Judges:

Schiemann LJ

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jul-1999, Times 29-Jun-1999, (2000) JPL 297, [1999] EWCA Civ 1682

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 55(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWilliams v Minister of Housing and Local Government QBD 1967
The appellant land-owner had bought it with an established business selling by retail from it vegetables and fruits and flowers grown on the land. He made minor alterations to the shop and began to sell also a number of oranges bananas and lemons . .
CitedWealden District Council v Secretary of State for Environment and Colin Day CA 1988
Land was in an area designated to be of outstanding natural beauty. The Council sought the removal of a caravan used to provide weatherproof storage for cattle food and shelter for the farmer, saying that this amounted to a material change of use. . .
CitedFarleyer Estates v Secretary of State for Scotland IHCS 1992
An Enforcement Notice alleged unauthorised use of land as a timber storage and transfer area. The land so used was 1500 metres from forestry plantations. The appellant argued that it was concerned with ‘the use of land for the purposes of forestry’ . .
Appeal fromMillington v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 1999
The court commented on provisions in a circular as to the correctness of imposing planning conditions where it was thought that they might not be fulfilled: ‘I think that that footnote is mistaken. Certainly the case leaves it open to the Secretary . .

Cited by:

CitedDouglas John Merritt v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Mendip District Council Admn 5-Aug-1999
The applicant appealed refusal of planning permission for residential development of a small plot of land. The said that the inspector had wrongly rejected the application of a Grampian condition on the basis that it would not be fulfilled and also . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Agriculture

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.146597

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex Parte Slough Borough Council and Another: CA 23 May 1995

A challenge to planning permission where the development had exceeded the application was to be made promptly. Where an area covered by the permission is not specified, it was not determined by the application. An unambiguous planning permission is to be read so as to stand on its own; no reference should be made to the application which generated it.

Citations:

Times 23-May-1995, Independent 14-Jun-1995, Gazette 14-Jun-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedReid, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport and Local Government and Another Admn 7-Oct-2002
Planning permission was granted subject to conditions. Later one condition was lifted on a renewed application. It referred to the earlier permission, but not the earlier conditions explicitly.
Held: The permission was not clear, and therefore . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.87719

Wells v Minister of Housing and Local Government: CA 1967

It had been the practice of planning authorities, acting through their officers, to tell applicants whether or not planning permission was necessary. A letter was written by the Council Engineer telling the applicants that no permission was necessary. The applicants acted on it.
Held: The planning authority could not go back on it. Lord Denning MR said: ‘It has been their practice to tell applicants that no planning permission is necessary. Are they now to be allowed to say that this practice was all wrong and their letters were of no effect? I do not think so. I take the law to be that a defect in procedure can be cured and an irregularity can be waived, even by a public authority, so as to render valid that which would otherwise be invalid.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Lord Justice Megaw

Citations:

[1967] 1 WLR 1000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLever (Finance) Ltd v City of Westminster CA 22-Jul-1970
The appellant developers had obtained detailed planning approval for fourteen houses, but after adjustments for a building line, moving several properties distances of several feet toward other properties, further plans were submitted without . .
CitedWestern Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Estoppel

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.443221

Southend-on-Sea Corporation v Hodgson (Wickford) Ltd: QBD 1961

The Corporation had, by its engineer, said that its permission for the use of land as a builder’s yard was not in fact and law required. It was mistaken in this view.
Held: What the engineer had said could not create an estoppel preventing the Corporation from exercising its statutory discretion to forbid the land being used as a builder’s yard. A local or planning authority cannot by contract fetter in an anticipatory way its future discretion to approve or reject applications after proper consideration in accordance with the prescribed procedure. An officer of a Planning Authority cannot estop that Planning Authority from subsequently contending that the particular development is not permitted

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

[1962] 1 QB 416, [1961] 2 All ER 46

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLever (Finance) Ltd v City of Westminster CA 22-Jul-1970
The appellant developers had obtained detailed planning approval for fourteen houses, but after adjustments for a building line, moving several properties distances of several feet toward other properties, further plans were submitted without . .
CitedWestern Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Estoppel

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.443218

Lever (Finance) Ltd v City of Westminster: CA 22 Jul 1970

The appellant developers had obtained detailed planning approval for fourteen houses, but after adjustments for a building line, moving several properties distances of several feet toward other properties, further plans were submitted without identifying the changes. The changes were discussed, and an approval noted by the developer’s architect. The development proceeded. A neighbour objected, and the officer recommended an application for approval of the amendment. The planning committee refused approval.
Held: The developer succeeded.
Lord Denning MR said that the case ‘should be decided on the practice proved in evidence. It was within the ostensible authority of Mr. Carpenter to tell Mr. Rottenberg that the variation was not material. Seeing that the developers acted on it by building the house, I do not think the Council can throw over what has been done by their officer, Mr Carpenter.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Sachs, Megaw LJJ

Citations:

[1970] EWCA Civ 3, [1971] 1 QB 222, (1970) 21 P and CR 778, 68 LGR 757, [1970] 3 WLR 732, [1970] 3 All ER 496

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSouthend-on-Sea Corporation v Hodgson (Wickford) Ltd QBD 1961
The Corporation had, by its engineer, said that its permission for the use of land as a builder’s yard was not in fact and law required. It was mistaken in this view.
Held: What the engineer had said could not create an estoppel preventing the . .
CitedRoyal British Bank v Turquand CEC 1856
The plaintiff sought payment from the defendants, a joint stock Company, on a bond, signed by two directors, under the seal of the Company whereby the Company acknowledged themselves to be bound to the plaintiff in pounds 2,000. The company said . .
CitedWells v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1967
It had been the practice of planning authorities, acting through their officers, to tell applicants whether or not planning permission was necessary. A letter was written by the Council Engineer telling the applicants that no permission was . .

Cited by:

CitedWestern Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.262773

Stancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority: QBD 22 Jun 2004

The claimants sought a declaration. Planning permission had been confirmed for four mineral extraction sites by letter in 1952. In 1996, two were listed as now being dormant. The claimant said the letter of 1952 created on single planning permision for the four sites, and that it was wrong to inlcude two properties separately.
Held: The claim failed, the claimant had not established that the permission had not lapsed. ‘it is not open to the court to make a declaration which purports to permit that which it was Parliament’s clear intention to forbid. The court cannot make the declaration in the terms sought under 3 and 4 while the list remains – or is read – in its present form.’ The authority would not have been entitled to rely upon an estoppel by convention, but in any event the case should have been dealt with by an application for judicial review and be subject to the strict timetables applicable to judicial review.

Judges:

Moore-Bick J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1475 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environment Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSalisbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment 1982
A planning permission given for the development of seven bungalows was construed as a grant of permission for a single development which could be spaced out over time. . .
CitedAmalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd CA 1982
The court explained the nature of an estoppel by convention.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law. But it has become overloaded with cases. That is why I have not gone . .
CitedNorwegian American Cruises A/S (formerly Norwegian American Lines A/S) v Paul Munday Ltd (The ‘Vistafjord’) 1988
A party may be precluded by an estoppel by convention from raising a contention contrary to a common assumption of fact or law (which could include the validity of a notice) upon which they have acted. . .
CitedCalder Gravel Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council 1989
The plaintiff’s predecessor in title had applied in 1946 for planning permission. The authority approved the application and for nearly 40 years all concerned had proceeded on the basis that outline planning permission had been granted. In 1984 the . .
CitedRedrow Homes Limited, Regina (on the Application Of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 3-Dec-2003
The case asked whether a single permission for a large-scale development extending over more than 2,500 acres could be construed as granting more than one permission. . .
CitedRegina v Caradon District Council Ex Parte Knott QBD 3-Mar-2000
A planning authority had already issued both rectification and discontinuance notices, and there was now no dispute with the land owner about the need to dismantle existing buildings, it amounted to an abuse of process further to go and issue an . .
CitedRegina and North Lincolnshire Council ex parte Horticultural and Garden Products Sales (Humberside) Limited Admn 31-Jul-1997
The applicant extracted peat from land in Doncaster. Planning permission had been granted in 1951. After a boundary change in 1994 part of the site remained in Doncaster and part came within the boundaries of Humberside which was replaced by the . .
CitedCarter Commercial Developments v Bedford Borough Council Admn 27-Jul-2001
The claimant brought proceedings in the Administrative Court by way of Part 8 claim seeking to establish by way of declaration that a planning appeal rejected by the Secretary of State in August 2000 as being out of time had in fact been commenced . .
CitedRegina (Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd) v East Sussex County Council Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd v Same HL 28-Feb-2002
The respondent company had asserted that the local authority had made a determination of the issue of whether electricity could be generated on a waste treatment site without further planning permission. The council said that without a formal . .
CitedClark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside CA 14-Apr-2000
A student had been failed after being falsely accused of cheating, but the academic review board, on remarking the paper marked it as zero.
Held: Where a University did not have the supervisory jurisdiction of a visitor, a breach of contract . .
CitedWestern Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .
CitedO’Reilly v Mackman HL 1982
Remission of Sentence is a Privilege not a Right
The plaintiffs had begun their action, to challenge their loss of remission as prisoners, by means of a writ, rather than by an action for judicial review, and so had sidestepped the requirement for the action to be brought within strict time . .
CitedThrasyvoulou v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1990
A building owner appealed against enforcement notices which alleged that there had been a material change of use of his buildings in 1982. This notice was issued by a planning authority. As a result of the appeal an inspector determined that the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromStancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority CA 17-Jun-2005
In 1952, the Minister wrote a leter confirming the planning permissions for four quarries now owned by the claimants. In 1996, two of the quarries were separately included in a list of dormant sites, and in 19999 the applicant began to apply for . .
At QBDStancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority CA 24-Feb-2005
Recommencement of quarry works under old planning licence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Planning

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.228572

Downderry Construction Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Another: Admn 11 Jan 2002

The applicant had an existing planning permission. They sought and received confirmation from the local authority that the permission remained in effect. They then sought a certificate of lawful use. The letter confirming the permission had been issued in error, but the claimant asserted that the council were estopped from refusing the certificate. The inspector said the developer knew enough not to have relied upon the letter.
Held: A public authority may be subject to an estoppel even in exercising its statutory duties in exceptional circumstances. Here the representation made by the council was clear and unambiguous, and the applicant believed it and relied upon it to his detriment. It was not justified to say he should have known the falsity of the representation. There is no requirement as to the reasonableness of the claimant relying upon the representation. The inspector erred in law and his decision was quashed.

Judges:

Richards J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 191 192

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWestern Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Administrative, Estoppel

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.168018

Rafferty and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: CA 29 Jul 2009

Appeal against refusal of permission for change of use. The permission sought was for a change of use to a residential gypsy caravan site for two Romany gypsies. The issue was whether an Article 8 right could be established in respect of a prospective home.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 809, [2009] 31 EG 72, [2010] JPL 485, [2009] PTSR 1708

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.368602

Loader and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v Poole Borough Council and Another: Admn 18 Mar 2009

Application for judicial review of a decision by the defendant to grant planning permission for development of land near Poole Harbour to demolish five existing residential buildings and erect six two and three-storey blocks of flats.

Judges:

Sales J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1288 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.346914

Hambleton District Council v Bird: CA 1995

The local authority sought an injunction to restrain the respondent Gypsies from use of land they owned, for residential caravans. The Gypsies had used the site, in breach of planning control, for a number of years. The judge had refused an injunction because of the personal circumstances of the respondents.
Held: The court considered the use of injunctions to support planning control. The power of the court in planning cases is supervisory, and its discretion as to the methods arises only on committal.

Judges:

Pill LJ

Citations:

[1995] 3 PLR 8

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 187B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMole Valley District Council v Smith 1992
The local authority sought to use its powers under the Act to enforce planning control over gypsies. . .
CitedWaverley Borough Council v Hilden 1988
The local authority sought to use its powers under the Act to enforce planning control over gypsies. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.182492

Williams, Regina (on The Application of) v Powys County Council: CA 9 Jun 2017

The court was asked whether ‘a local planning authority, when granting planning permission for a wind turbine, fall into error by failing to consult the Welsh Ministers upon the likely effects of that development on the settings of two scheduled monuments? And did it err in failing to consider the likely effects on the setting of a grade II listed church? ‘
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Lindblom, Irwin LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 427, [2017] WLR(D) 392

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.588333

Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 10 Nov 2010

Regional Spatial Stategies, setting targets for new homes within regions, and governing planning consents were to be withdrawn by the respondent and replaced in due course by a new planning bill. The claimant objected that this could only be achieved by primary legislation, and that pending such it was wrong to allow the respondent to withdraw the RSS documents.
Held: The challenge was well founded and that the action of the Secretary of State had been unlawful, for two reasons: first, because the Secretary of State’s attempt to use his power under section 79(6) of the 2009 Act to revoke all Regional Strategies in force at that date involved the use of that power for an improper purpose, essentially because the power given by that provision had not been intended by Parliament to be used to effect the abrogation of the Regional Strategy tier of planning policy by executive action; and, secondly, because the Secretary of State’s decision to revoke the Regional Strategy for the South-East had been taken without the necessary consideration of whether this change in the development plan was likely to have significant environmental effects, and was thus in breach of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and Regulations.

Judges:

Sales J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2866 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 79(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoCala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 16-Dec-2010
Local authorities were presently bound to plan future housing developments in accordance with Regional Spatial Strategies which the new government intended to abolish. The respondent had previously been told by the court that primary legislation was . .
See AlsoCala 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 . .
CitedHinds, Regina (on The Application of) v Blackpool Council Admn 17-Mar-2011
The council had resolved to grant planning permission for a development, but before the permission was actually granted the Secretary of State had written to planning authorities saying that he intended to abolish the ‘Regional Spatial Strategies’. . .
See AlsoCala Homes (South) Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 27-May-2011
The respondent had circularised local authorities to say that when assessing future local housing needs a proper material consideration was the proposed Localism Bill which would lead to the replacement of ‘Regional Spatial Strategies’ on which such . .
CitedBroxbourne Borough Council v Robb and Others QBD 27-Jun-2011
The Council applied for the committal of the defendant for an alleged breach of a without notice injunction. Notice of the injunction had been placed at the site, requiring nobody to move caravans onto the land.
Held: The application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.425898

Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 16 Dec 2010

Local authorities were presently bound to plan future housing developments in accordance with Regional Spatial Strategies which the new government intended to abolish. The respondent had previously been told by the court that primary legislation was required, and that therefore a direction to ignore the current criteria was unlawful. The claimant now said that a letter written following the judgement, and which announced his intentions and said that these were a material consideration for such decisions now being made, was also unlawful.
Held: A declaration was granted.

Judges:

Lindblom J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3278 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 38(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina (Save) v Gateshead Metropolian Borough Council Admn 2010
. .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Avon County Council CA 1991
The court was asked to order a stay on implementing a decision taken by the respondent.
Held: A ‘stay of proceedings’ in the context of applications for judicial review embraced not only judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings but also extended . .
See AlsoCala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 10-Nov-2010
Regional Spatial Stategies, setting targets for new homes within regions, and governing planning consents were to be withdrawn by the respondent and replaced in due course by a new planning bill. The claimant objected that this could only be . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No 2) HL 11-Oct-1990
The validity of certain United Kingdom legislation was challenged on the basis that it contravened provisions of the EEC Treaty by depriving the applicants of their Community rights to fish in European waters, and an interlocutory injunction was . .
CitedRegina v HM Inspector of Pollution and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex Parte Greenpeace Ltd CA 30-Sep-1993
A campaigning organisation was challenging an official decision which, if stayed, would have adverse financial implications for a commercial company (British Nuclear Fuels PLC) which was not a party to the proceedings. Brooke J had refused a stay. . .
CitedRegina (H) v Ashworth Hospital Authority and Others, Regina (Ashworth Hospital Authority) v Mental Health Review Tribunal for West Midlands and North West Region and Others CA 28-Jun-2002
The patient was detained under the Act. The Mental Health Tribunal decided he should be released. The hospital disagreed. The patient continued to reside to the Hospital voluntarily, but the hospital viewed the decision to release him as . .

Cited by:

See AlsoCala 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 . .
CitedCherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd Admn 22-Aug-2013
The campaign company sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent granting permission to develop nearby land as a golf course.
Held: The application succeeded. The Secretary of State in preserving the effect of certain policies had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.427282

Friends of Hethel Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v South Norfolk District Council and Another: CA 30 Jul 2010

The claimants challenged planning permission given for the erection of wind turbines.

Judges:

Sedley, Lloyd, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 894, [2011] 1 WLR 1216, [2010] NPC 90, [2011] PTSR 630, [2011] BLGR 19, [2011] JPL 192

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Environment

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.421203

Belster Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another: QBD 10 Jun 1998

A decision turning down an application but refusing costs order also was not inconsistent with allowing that the general need for housing did not displace need for green belt preservation.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Jun-1998

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.78328

Cowen v Secretary of State for Environment Peak District National Park Authority: CA 26 May 1999

A land-owner laid a tarmac surface on a path within the National Park. This was held to be an improvement required for the right of way. The fact that works constituted an alteration did not avoid the protection given as an improvement.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1484, [1999] 3 PLR 108

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 1995 No 418

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromCowen v Secretary of State for Environment and Peak District National Park Authority Admn 12-Feb-1998
. .

Cited by:

CitedTaylor and Sons (Farms) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Three Rivers District Council CA 31-Jul-2001
Over a long period of time the applicants had deposited large quantities of waste on their land to hard standings and tracks. They were served with enforcement notices alleging a change from agricultural use, to agricultural use with waste deposit, . .
CitedTaylor v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another QBD 30-Jan-2001
An area with a hard surface which was used as a hard standing for feeding sheep, and which was formed by deposit of builder’s rubble was not a habitation and therefore was not used for the accommodation of sheep. Since the landowner was entitled to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.79583

Swainsthorpe Parish Council, Regina (on The Application of) v Norfolk County Council: Admn 23 Apr 2021

Judicial review of the consultation response made by the Defendant in its capacity as the local highway authority to the Interested Party (‘the local planning authority, which was considering a planning application for a development on land near the A140

Judges:

Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 1014 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.662329

Choiceplace Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government: Admn 27 Apr 2021

Application pursuant to Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the decision of the defendant’s duly appointed inspector in which he dismissed the appeal of the claimant against the interested parties’ refusal of an application under Section 192(1)(b) of the 1990 Act in respect of a certificate of lawful use or development.

Judges:

Mr Justice Dove

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 1070 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.662317

Leech Homes Ltd v Northumberland County Council (Compensation – Planning Permission – Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development): UTLC 6 May 2020

COMPENSATION – PLANNING PERMISSION – certificate of appropriate alternative development – land on settlement boundary within the general extent of proposed extension to green belt – inner boundary of green belt not yet defined – whether green belt policies should apply to determination of appropriate alternative development – whether very special circumstances would justify planning permission – appeal dismissed – negative certificate confirmed

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 150 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.651756

Cala Homes (South) Limited v Chichester District Council: Admn 20 Aug 1999

A claim to set aside parts of a local plan had been filed in the wrong court, and without the forms as now required under the Civil Procedure Rules. A new application would be out of time. An application allowing transfer and correction of the faults succeeded, since the true nature of the claim was clear, and formal rules should not defeat compliance with a statutory time limit.

Citations:

Times 15-Oct-1999, Gazette 02-Sep-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 805

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 287

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.140069

Harrods Ltd v Secretary Of State for the Environment and Another: CA 7 Mar 2002

Whether planning permission required for helipad on roof of Harrods – whether the introduction of the helicopter use amounted to development by the making of a material change of use of the Harrods store.
Held: It did.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 412, [2002] JPL 1258, [2002] 11 EG 154, [2003] 1 PLR 108

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.346813

Colney Heath Parish Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 22 Apr 2009

The Council challenged the grant of planning permission after a public enquiry for a mobile home and touring caravan site for gypsy families. They said that the inspector had not taken account of their objections to its effect on the flood plain and other accommodation.
Held: An analysis of the effect of flooding on neighbouring land had not been given proper weight by the inspector. Had he done so, the decision might well have been different, and therefore must be quashed.

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 787 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBolton Metropoitan Borough Council v Secretary of State 1990
. .
CitedELS Wholesale (Wolverhampton) Limited v Secretary of State 1987
Planning appeal decision letters are not to be read on the basis that the Inspector is writing an examination paper, and one has to look not at the minutiae but at the real sense and basic content of the decision to which he had come. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.341187

Mortell, Regina (on the Application of) v Oldham Metropolitan Borough: Admn 30 Mar 2007

The claimant sought orders quashing planning permissions granted for the re-development of land around Derker Station.

Judges:

Sir Michael Harrison

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1526 (Admin), [2007] JPL 1679

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 85/337/EEC, Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSave Britain’s Heritage, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 14-May-2010
The claimant challenged the order allowing the demolition of a disused listed building saying that the Direction was contrary to European law in not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Secretary of State said an EIA was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.254338

Heatherington (UK) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment: 1995

The company owned a listed residential property with temporary permission for office use. The local authority required the building to be returned to residential use when the permission expired. The company argued that continued office use would allow them to undertake works to enhance its architecural features, and that the inspector had failed to consider the effect on the special qualities of the building if it was to revert to residential use.
Held: The company’s appeal was allowed. In making his decision the inspector had failed in his duty under the Act to consider whether a reversion and associated conversion to residential use would seriously affect the architectural features of the building.

Judges:

David Keene QC

Citations:

(1995) 69 P and CR 374, (1995) JPL 228

Statutes:

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) ACt 1990 66(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBoulevard Land Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment and Another Admn 27-Feb-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.251063

Waverley Borough Council v Hilden: 1988

The local authority sought to use its powers under the Act to enforce planning control over gypsies.

Citations:

[1988] 1 WLR 246

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 222

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWrexham County Borough Council v Berry; South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and others HL 22-May-2003
The appellants challenged the refusal to grant them injunctions to prevent Roma parking caravans on land they had purchased.
Held: Parliament had given to local authorities exclusive jurisdiction on matters of planning policy, but when an . .
CitedHambleton District Council v Bird CA 1995
The local authority sought an injunction to restrain the respondent Gypsies from use of land they owned, for residential caravans. The Gypsies had used the site, in breach of planning control, for a number of years. The judge had refused an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.182490

Cord v Secretary of State for the Environment: 1981

Citations:

[1981] JPL 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedSamuel v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another QBD 1-Jul-1998
Inspector’s decision that any residential use of a caravan involved change of use was not sustainable by use as kitchen for staff in cattery. Notice to remove the caravan went beyond what was needed; but notice re unmoved green belt encroachment was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.181191

Fylde Coast Farms Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Fylde Borough Council: SC 14 May 2021

Single short point about the interpretation and effect of section 61N of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the TCPA’), which is headed ‘Legal challenges in relation to neighbourhood development orders’.

Judges:

Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden, Lord Sales, Lord Stephens

Citations:

[2021] UKSC 18

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bli Issues and Facts

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.662464

Oyston Estates Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Fylde Borough Council: CA 5 Jul 2019

How should one understand the statutory provisions – in section 61N of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – for proceedings to challenge the steps taken by a local planning authority in making a neighbourhood plan?

Judges:

Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Lindblom, Lady Justice Rose

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1152

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.639497

Margate Town Centre Regeneration Company Ltd and Others v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 2 May 2013

Challenges to compulsory purchase orders.
Held: The Orders stand

Judges:

Sycamore HHJ

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 973 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Acquisition of Land Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromMargate Town Centre Regeneration Company Ltd and Others v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others CA 8-Oct-2013
Appeal against dismissal of claim for quashing of compulsory purchase order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Planning

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491916