Category: Planning

Deepdock Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v the Welsh Ministers: Admn 30 Oct 2007

Parties who depended on inshore marine life objected to the proposed planning permission for a marina which they said would adversely affect the seabed and their industries.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3347 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Agriculture

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271166

Wychavon District Council of Civic Centre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others: Admn 19 Dec 2007

The court quashed a grant of temporary planning permission to the applicant gypsies to stand a caravan on a green field site.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3209 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others CA 23-Jun-2008
The court considered the rejection of an application for temporary planning consent by the gipsies to place a caravan on land in a green belt.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There was a requirement to balance the need to maintain the green belt . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271215

Dinedor Hill Action Association v County of Herefordshire District Council and Another: Admn 24 Jul 2008

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1741 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271038

Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport: Admn 10 Jul 2019

Challenges of Defendant’s decision in which he accepted recommendations from Highways England on the choice of a preferred corridor for the proposed new Oxford to Cambridge Expressway

Judges:

Lang DBE J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1786 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.639689

Broad, Regina (on The Application of) v Sanctuary Group: Admn 21 Mar 2019

Application for judicial review of the Defendant Council’s grant of planning permission to the Interested Party which is a provider of social housing, for the demolition of existing garages and their replacement with six social housing units.

Judges:

David Elvin QC

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 628 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.639683

Segar and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Wychavon District Council: Admn 5 Mar 2015

Complaint that the defendant Local Authority had not properly exercised its discretionary powers under section 173(a)(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or to waive or relax its requirements in circumstances when it became apparent in 2014 that gates and pillars at the claimant’s property specified in an enforcement notice served in 2008 had already become immune from enforcement action before the issue of that notice, which was dated 6 March 2008. The immunity arose because the gates and pillars had been constructed as long ago as 2002.

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1417 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.549396

Hart District Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others: Admn 1 May 2008

Sullivan J said: ‘Unlike an EIA, which must be in the form prescribed by the EIA Directive, and must include, for example, a non-technical summary, enabling the public to express its opinion on the environmental issues raised (see Berkeley v the Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 AC 603 per Lord Hoffmann at p 615), an appropriate assessment under article 6(3) and regulation 48(1) does not have to be in any particular form (see para 52 of Waddenzee judgment), and obtaining the opinion of the general public is optional . . ‘

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1204 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270055

South Cambridgeshire District Council v Persons Unknown: CA 17 Sep 2004

The council appealed refusal of an order against persons unknown with regard to preventing breaches of planning control at a specific site.
Held: An injunction could properly be granted against persons unknown ‘causing or permitting hardcore to be deposited, caravans, mobile homes or other forms of residential accommodation to be stationed, or existing caravans or other mobile homes to be occupied on land’ adjacent to a gypsy encampment in rural Cambridgeshire. The land adjoined a gipsy caravan site. The council had refused applications to allow infill development between such sites. The courts powers had clearly developed sufficiently to make an order of the kind sought in this kind of situation. Brooke LJ commented: ‘There was some difficulty in times gone by against obtaining relief against persons unknown, but over the years that problem has been remedied either by statute or by rule.’

Judges:

Brooke and Clarke LJJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1280, Times 11-Nov-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bloomsbury Publishing Group Ltd and J K Rowling v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others ChD 23-May-2003
The publishers had gone to great lengths to keep advance copies of a forthcoming book in the Harry Potter series secret. They became aware that some had been stolen from the printers and sought injunctions against the defendants and another unnamed . .

Cited by:

Cited – X and Y v Persons Unknown QBD 8-Nov-2006
The claimants sought an injunction against unknown persons who were said to have divulged confidential matters to newspapers. The order had been served on newspapers who now complained that the order was too uncertain to allow them to know how to . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs v Meier and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimant sought a possession order to recover land from trespassers. The court considered whether a possession order was available where not all the land was occupied, and it was feared that the occupiers might simply move onto a different part. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, Litigation Practice

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.216385

Jackson v Daventry District Council: Admn 1 May 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 476

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Planning

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.138597

East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Hobson: Admn 18 Apr 2008

The authority appealed by case stated from the dismissal of its complaints that the defendant had altered a listed building. He had been given permission to carry out certain works, but had in effect demolished and rebuilt the property.
Held: Had the prosecution been mounted as the works progressed, the works would have been shown to have altered the character of the buildings, but the final building did not have that characteristic. The district judge had been correct to allow for this and the appeal failed.

Judges:

Keene LJ, Treacy J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1003 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 9

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Major Sandhu CACD 10-Dec-1996
The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for infringements of the 1990 Act. The house was already very severly dilapidated when it came to be listed. He was accused of making changes outside the extent of the listed buildings consent he . .
Cited – Shimizu (UK) Ltd v Westminster City Council HL 11-Feb-1997
The removal of a listed building’s chimney stacks was an alteration allowing a claim for compensation. The phrases ‘alteration’ and ‘demolition’ are mutually exclusive. Although part of a building may be a listed building, a part of a listed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267573

McGowan v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: Admn 18 Mar 2002

The landowner applied for planning permission to erect an extension. The Inspector rejected the application on the basis that the privacy and outlook of the neighbouring property would be adversely affected. His inspection had been limited, and had incorrectly thought that the neighbour’s land included a patio area when it was in fact a flat roof. The land owner appealed.
Held: The error was marginal in effect. The view was tentative, and the inspector had properly taken into account the effect of the proposed development on the neighbour’s property. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Justice Sullivan

Citations:

Gazette 11-Apr-2002

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 78 288

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.170050

Joinglobal Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions, and Another: Admn 3 Oct 2001

The applicant had outline planning permission for residential development of a green field site in an urban area. He allowed it to expire, and made further application. On the local authority failing to decide, it applied to the inspector who refused it. In the light of current policies (PPG3), such development was no longer appropriate.
Held: Though the site was within a village, it had properly been treated as urban. The inspector had properly considered PPG3, and there was no justification for treating it as analogous to previously developed land.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Gazette 11-Oct-2001

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.166539

Chant v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another: Admn 1 Jul 2002

The applicant challenged an order requiring him to discontinue use of land on which were listed buildings in need of repair. The authority had concluded that compulsory purchase would not be sufficient to achieve the result required. The land owner contended that such an order was draconian, and should not be made without additional evidence for its necessity.
Held: The true requirement was that the authority was required to be shown to be decisively in the public interest. The continued use would have negatived the attempt to restore the buildings. The inspector had properly balanced the need to restore the buildings and the needs of the settings. His human rights to enjoy his property had not been infringed, because of the public need to restore the buildings and the owners rights, and he would be compensated.

Judges:

Mr Justice Sullivan

Citations:

Gazette 11-Jul-2002

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 102

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Coleen Properties Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 26-Jan-1971
The Minister confirmed a compulsory purchase order despite it having been made without any supporting evidence.
Held: The order was set aside. The Minister had erred in not following his Inspector’s conclusion that a compulsory purchase order . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte de Rothschild CA 1988
The court considered the use of powers of compulsory purchase of land under the Acts.
Held: ‘In answer to counsel’s submissions as to ‘special rules’, I summarise my conclusions thus. First, I do not accept that any special rules beyond the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.174321

Entertainu Ltd v First Secretary of State and another: Admn 6 May 2003

The claimant operated an hostess bar in Chinatown. The local authority served an enforcement notice, and the applicant applied for planning permission. The authority rejected the application on the basis that that particular bar would encourage crime and be a detriment to the residential character of the area. The inspector rejected it on the basis that any such establishment would be unwelcome in the area. The respondent rejected the appeal.
Held: The Inspector had found against the applicant on a basis (as to the general policy for such establishments as against any detriment associated with this particular establishment) which had not been put to him. The applicants had accordingly not had a chance to place before him their own arguments against that objection. The decision was flawed and remitted for reconsideration.

Judges:

Mr Justice Collins

Citations:

Gazette 22-May-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Entertainu Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and Another Admn 26-Oct-2004
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Entertainu Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and Another Admn 26-Oct-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.183801

South Bucks District Council and Another v Porter: Admn 17 Sep 2002

The court dismissed an application by the council under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 seeking to quash a decision of the Secretary of State given by his duly appointed inspector by letter dated 19 February 2002. The inspector had allowed an appeal against a decision of the council on 5 September 2000 refusing planning permission for the retention of a residential mobile home at Willow Tree Farm, Love Lane, Iver, Bucks. The permission granted by the inspector was subject to conditions including a condition that it was personal to Mrs Porter.

Judges:

Judge Rich QC

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2136 Admin

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – South Bucks District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Linda Porter CA 19-May-2003
The applicant, a gipsy had occupied land she had bought. Her occupation was in breach of planning control. The inspector found exceptional cirumstances for allowing her to continue to live there. The authority appealed.
Held: The inspector had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.198567

Jory v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another: Admn 12 Nov 2002

The claimant took part in a planning appeal, objecting to a development. After the appeal, the inspector agreed different conditions, but without allowing the claimant to be involved. He appealed.
Held: The inspector was obliged to deal fairly. The claimant was not entitled as of right to attend but had done so, and the issues raised were at the heart of the dispute. The inspector was entitled to come to his one conclusion, but having discussed matters post hearing with the other parties he should have contacted the claimant. Decision set aside,

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Gazette 21-Nov-2002, Times 03-Dec-2002, Gazette 23-Jan-2003

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 (2000 No 1626) 14(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Fairmount Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1976
A local authority had made a compulsory purchase order which was challenged and an inquiry was held. The inspector, after the conclusion of the hearing, conducted his own inspection of the premises as a result of which he concluded that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Land

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.178244

Everett v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions, and Another: Admn 3 Sep 2001

The applicant had erected various buildings without permission. At one point, one of two enforcement notices was set aside on the basis that the use had been established for more than four years. Subsequently, buildings were demolished and rebuilt. He answered a further enforcement notice saying that the use had been lawful by virtue of the rejection of the previous notice.
Held: The enforcement notice which had been discharged, related to a change of use only. The breach alleged extended over other areas, and so no lawful use was effective to resist the enforcement. The previous temporary permission was replaced only again by another temporary permission. Policy H21 did not apply.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Sep-2001

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174(2)(d), 191, 288

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.166181

Stroud College v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: Admn 25 Mar 2002

A college owned land which it sought to develop for residential purposes. The officers supported the proposal but the committee and inspector went against it, on the basis that it would be a loss of an opportunity to a neighbouring football club to expand. The landowner said there was no evidence of any prospect of the club acquiring the land.
Held: The inspector had failed properly to consider the probability of the club acquiring the land. Its offer had been rejected. The inspector had not explained her reasoning, and the landowner was entitled to know how the conclusion had been reached.

Judges:

Mr Justice Harrison

Citations:

Gazette 25-Apr-2002

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.170172

Perrin and Another v Northampton Borough Council and others: CA 19 Dec 2007

The land owners had sought permission to fell an oak tree subject to a tree preservation order in order to prevent further damage from its roots.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The court was asked to decide whether any works to the tree could be said to be necessary if there were other possible works (not involving operations to the tree itself) which would suffice to prevent or abate the nuisance. The test under section 198(6)(b) of the 1990 Act was ‘necessary’, not ‘reasonably necessary’. But the fact that it is the stricter test of necessity (rather than the looser test of reasonable necessity) that must be applied does not lead to the conclusion that, in applying the stricter test, regard is not to be had to all the circumstances. A protected tree should remain protected unless there was a real need to lift that protection. Effect is given to that intention by reading the expression ‘so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance’ as ‘if and so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance’.
Chadwick LJ said: ‘Commonsense suggests that the task in such cases should be to identify and evaluate the various possible means of abating or preventing the nuisance – whether by doing something to the tree itself or by other works – and then to ask, in the light of that evaluation, whether it is, indeed, necessary to do something to the tree, and (if so) what.’ and ‘The better view, as it seems to me, is that Parliament intended that Section 198(6)(b) should be interpreted in a manner which gave proper weight to the word ‘necessary’. It is intended that a protected tree should remain protected unless there was a real need to lift that protection. Effect is given to that intention by reading the expression ‘so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance’ as ‘if and so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance’.

Judges:

Wall LJ, Blackburne LJ, Sir John Chadwick

Citations:

Times 21-Jan-2008, [2007] EWCA Civ 1353, [2008] Env LR 17, [2008] 2 EG 146, [2008] BLR 137, [2008] 1 P and CR 25, [2008] 1 WLR 1307, [2008] 1 EGLR 93, [2008] JPL 809, [2008] 4 All ER 673, [2007] NPC 139, [2008] 10 EG 168, [2008] BLGR 379

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 198(6)(b), Town and Country Planning Act 1971 60

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Perrin and Another v Northampton Borough Council and others TCC 26-Sep-2006
The claimants sought an order under the Act to allow engineering operations to prevent nuisance from a tree subject to a tree preservation order. . .
Cited – Pabari v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions-And-Nilesh Pabari CA 10-Nov-2004
Housing Costs as part of child support assessment. The court considered the interpretation of the word ‘necessary’, saying that the Court must not qualify the word ‘necessary’ by reference to what might be regarded as reasonable. The word . .
Cited – Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster HL 25-Oct-2001
The landowner claimed damages for works necessary to remediate damage to his land after encroachment of tree roots onto his property.
Held: The issue had not been properly settled in English law. The problem was to be resolved by applying a . .
Cited – Smith v Oliver 1989
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School, Regina (on The Application of) v The Archbishop of Westminster and Another CA 14-Apr-2011
Parent Governors of the School disputed the appointment by the defendant of representatives to the school governors, saying that they were ineligible in that parents of current students should have been appointed in their stead if available.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Land, Nuisance

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262940

South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell and others: QBD 7 Dec 2007

Judges:

Andrew Edis QC

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2919 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell CA 2005
The Council had taken out an injunction under section 187B of the 1990 Act to prevent unknown persons placing caravans on certain lands. The defendants acted in breach of those injunctions, and the Council requested their committal for contempt. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262120

Residents Against Waste Site Ltd v Lancashire County Council and Another: Admn 7 Nov 2007

The company, formed to oppose it, sought judicial review of the respondent’s decision to grant planning permission for a waste disposal facility.

Judges:

Irwin J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2558 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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

Planning

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261396

Thrasyvoulou 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 buildings were in hotel use. The use of the buildings did not change between 1982 and 1985. Nevertheless, in the latter year the planning authority issued further enforcement notices alleging that there had been a change of use from hotel to hostel. The Court of Appeal accepted a plea of action estoppel.
Held: The House of Lords confirmed the decision.
Lord Bridge said: ‘In relation to adjudications subject to a comprehensive self-contained statutory code, the presumption, in my opinion, must be that where the statute has created a specific jurisdiction for the determination of any issue which establishes the existence of a legal right, the principle of res judicata applies to give finality to that determination unless an intention to exclude that principle can properly be inferred as a matter of construction of the relevant statutory provisions.’ And
‘The doctrine of res judicata rests on the twin principles which cannot be better expressed than in terms of the two Latin maxims ‘interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium’ and ‘nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa’. These principles are of such fundamental importance that they cannot be confined in their application to litigation in the private law field. They certainly have their place in the criminal law. In principle they must apply equally to adjudications in the field of public law. In relation to adjudications subject to a comprehensive self-contained statutory code, the presumption, in my opinion, must be that where the statute has created a specific jurisdiction for the determination of any issue which establishes the existence of a legal right, the principle of res judicata applies to give finality to that determination unless an intention to exclude that principle can properly be inferred as a matter of construction of the statutory provisions.’
and ‘the local planning authority were . . . estopped from asserting that there had been a material change of use between certain dates, which expressly contradicted the finding made by the first planning inspector, which was not merely incidental or ancillary to his decision but was an essential foundation for his conclusion that no breach of planning control was involved in the use being made of the structure which was the subject of the first notice.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge

Citations:

[1990] 2 AC 273

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Education and Skills v Mairs Admn 25-May-2005
The appellant had been dismissed from the social services department of Haringey Borough Council, and her name placed on a list of persons unsuitable to work with children. She had been criticised in the statutory inquiry into the death of Victoria . .
Cited – Stancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority QBD 22-Jun-2004
The claimants sought a declaration. Planning permission had been confirmed for four mineral extraction sites by letter in 1952. In 1996, two were listed as now being dormant. The claimant said the letter of 1952 created on single planning permision . .
Cited – Special Effects Ltd v L’Oreal Sa and Another CA 12-Jan-2007
The defendants had opposed the grant of the trade mark which they were now accused of infringing. The claimants said that having failed at the opposition stage, they were now estopped from challenging the validity of the mark.
Held: It was not . .
Cited – Coke-Wallis, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales SC 19-Jan-2011
The appellant chartered accountant had been convicted in Jersey after removing documents from his offices relating to a disputed trust and in breach of an order from his professional institute. The court now considered the relevance and application . .
Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC 3-Jul-2013
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .
Cited – DN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 26-Feb-2020
Challenge to imprisonment pending deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘The giving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Estoppel, Administrative

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.228500

Hann v Secretary Of State For The Environment, Sedgemoor District Council: Admn 4 Oct 1996

The applicant appealed a refusal of permission with regard to the retention of the use of certain land and existing redundant agricultural buildings for light industrial and storage purposes. The inspector found certain advantages in the proposal, but felt that the structure requirements overrode those advantages. However the plan did allow for such changes. Appeal allowed.

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 82

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.136630

Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water), Regina (On the Application of) v the Environment Agency: Admn 10 Mar 2009

Residents of a village complained of the standard of sewage works serving their properties, and sought a public sewage system. The complaint was forwarded to Welsh Water, which had an assessment prepared and returned indicating that it would go ahead. The company then changed its mind, but the council persisted. The court was asked whether the company could withdraw its decision.
Held: The company must be able to review its decisions, and nothing in the Act restricted that. The section required an exercise of judgment by the company, allowing for any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. It was not bound to follow such guidance, and nor was any particular methodology of cost benefit analysis required.

Judges:

Mr Justice Wyn Williams

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 435 (Admin), [2009] NPC 41, [2009] 2 All ER 919, [2009] Env LR 32, [2009] 11 EG 118

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Water Industry Act 1991 101A(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Utilities, Administrative, Planning

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.331096

The Midcounties Co-Operative Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Forest of Dean District Council, Santon Group Developments Ltd: Admn 20 Jul 2007

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1714 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 16-Dec-2015
The appellant challenged the grant of permission to the erection of wind turbines within sight of its golf course.
Held: The appeal failed. The challenge under section 36 was supported neither by the language or structure of the 1989 Act, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258158