Planning permission was sought to allow the deforestation of a parcel of forest to allow a sports field to be set out. The claimants said that an environmental impact assessment should have been obtained first.
Held: The Forestry Commissioners should have look at the possible impact of the entire development rather than this facet in particular. If that entire project would require an assessment, and assessment should be obtained. The case was remitted to the Commissioners.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1623 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Planning

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254499

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1290 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253288

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 134 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.222615

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 878, [2015] 1 WLR 2367

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.533672

Judges:

Pitchford J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2873 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.293929

Judges:

Jack J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2594 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.263168

Application to quash a decision of an Inspector dismissing the claimant’s appeal against the second defendant’s failure to determine an application for outline planning permission and the refusal of a further application for planning permission.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 475 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Planning

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250590

An Inspector ought to give reasons for departing from the decision of a previous Inspector

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 236

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wind Prospect Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 5-Dec-2014
The claimant appealed against refusal of permission to erect a six turbine wind farm. The inspector had recommended the plan, but the defendant had decided against it.
Held: The claim failed. The planning inspector’s report is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250571

Whether a planning permission had been implemented by the removal of topsoil from the site. Appeal from finding that the removal of the top soil ‘was preparatory to such an extent that it cannot be regarded as an act in accordance with the planning permission’.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 257, [2001] JPL 1325 (Note), [2002] PLCR 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.200841

The applicant built a shed on land behind his bungalow, but without planning consent. The planning authority issued enforcement proceedings. He appealed, contending that it fell within the Order. The inspector visited the property, and decided that it was not within the curtilage of the house. The land owner appealed.
Held: Whether the shed was within the curtilage of the house was a question of fact and degree. The inspector had correctly applied the law, and also was right to amplify the evidence with knowledge from his site visit. His decision was not to be challenged. The statutory context of these and criminal proceedings was quite different, and there was no rule placing a similar duty of disclosure on the inspector.

Judges:

Mr Justice Maurice Kay

Citations:

Gazette 07-Nov-2002

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Sch 2 Part I Class E

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dyer v Dorset County Council CA 1988
The court discussed what was meant by the curtilage of the appellant’s house: ‘Thus the sole issue is whether Mr Dyer’s house is or is not within the curtilage of another building or, by the application of section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978, . .
Cited – Methuen-Campbell v Walters CA 1978
The curtilage of a house is narrowly confined to the area surrounding it and did not extend to a paddock. Buckley LJ said: ‘In my judgment, for one corporeal hereditament to fall within the curtilage of another, the former must be so intimately . .
Cited – McAlpine v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another QBD 6-Dec-1994
The extent of a curtilage was to be determined as at the time when a dispute arose, but historical evidence remained relevant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.177946

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.136588

Judges:

King, Lindblom, Holroyde LJJ

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1016, [2019] WLR(D) 338

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.638822

Cross-applications by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and the defendant for judgment pursuant to CPR Part 24.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1506 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.638458

The Claimant challenged the decision of the First Defendant, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to dismiss its appeal against the refusal by the Second Defendant, Mid-Sussex District Council of outline planning permission for 120 dwellings, community facility/office space, care home and retail units.

Judges:

Holgate J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1173 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.546288

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3326 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Planning

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249179

The claimant sought to quash decisions made by the defendant relating to planning permission previously granted for further development of Buck Park Quarry.

Judges:

Crane J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3344 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Planning

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249140

Oral renewal of an application for permission to appeal against refusal of review of planning permission for a proposed extension to a cement works involving new apparatus, to use a very general and probably quite inappropriate word, designed to enable the cement works to operate with a different kind of fuel.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1584

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249073

Application for injunction to prevent demolition of a building which was ‘the only industrial building designed by Sir Edwin Cooper.’

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1436

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249072

The appellants challenged an enforcement notice saying that it was a development ‘reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture’ within an agricultural unit of at least 5 hectares.
Held: Carnwath LJ, with whom the other members of the court agreed, observed at para 33 of his judgment that the inspector has wide powers to decide whether there is any solution, short of a complete remedy of the breach, which is acceptable in planning terms and amenity terms. If there is, he should be prepared to modify the requirements of the notice and grant permission subject to conditions. The inspector’s primary task, however, is to consider the proposals that have been put before him, and although he is free to suggest alternatives it is not his duty to search around for solutions
Carnwath LJ said: ‘As I have said, I would not wish to lay down any general rules. I would accept that as a general proposition, given the limitations of the written representations procedure, an appellant would be well advised to put forward any possible fall-back position as part of his substantive case. It is not the duty of the inspector to make his case for him. On the other hand the inspector should bear in mind that the enforcement procedure is intended to be remedial rather than punitive. If on his consideration of the submissions and in the light of the site view, it appears to him that there is an obvious alternative which would overcome the planning difficulties, at less cost and disruption than total removal, he should feel free to consider it. In such circumstances fairness may require him to give notice to the parties to enable them to comment on it . . .’

‘the enforcement procedure is intended to be remedial rather than punitive’.

Judges:

Carnwath LJ, Wilson LJ, Hughes LJ

Citations:

[2007] 2 P and CR 7, [2006] EWCA Civ 1744, [2007] 2 P and CR 133

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Tapecrown Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 11-Apr-2006
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Moore 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: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247499

The essence of the section 187B procedure is to achieve a speedy resolution of a planning problem. The courts have repeatedly emphasised that the injunction proceedings are not to be used as an opportunity to re-argue the planning merits of the case which were matters for the planning authority and the Secretary of State.

Judges:

Carnwath J

Citations:

[1996] JPL 886

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v North West Estates plc and others ChD 31-May-2002
The planning authority sought injunctions for enforcement notices. The landowner argued that human rights law required the court when looking at such a request to look at the entire planning history.
Held: Although the court could look to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.183691

The landowner appealed against an enforcement notice issued with respect to a chain link fence erected along the driveway of his grade II listed building. He said the drive was not part of the curtilage of the building.
Held: The inspector had been wrong to place significance on what he thought was the owners intentions in erecting the fence when he had to interpret what was the curtilage.

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 537 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

General Permitted Development Order 1995 Part II of Schedule 2 class A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Jepson v Gribble 1876
A house occupied by the medical superintendent of an asylum fronted on to a public road and had access from the back to the asylum itself, although it was very much closer than to the asylum than are the lecturers’ cottages to any other college . .
Cited – Dyer v Dorset County Council CA 1988
The court discussed what was meant by the curtilage of the appellant’s house: ‘Thus the sole issue is whether Mr Dyer’s house is or is not within the curtilage of another building or, by the application of section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978, . .
Cited – Trim v Sturminster Rural District Council CA 1938
The ‘appurtenances’ of a house are confined to the curtilage of the house. . .
Cited – Methuen-Campbell v Walters CA 1978
The curtilage of a house is narrowly confined to the area surrounding it and did not extend to a paddock. Buckley LJ said: ‘In my judgment, for one corporeal hereditament to fall within the curtilage of another, the former must be so intimately . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another v Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd CA 25-Feb-2000
The meaning of ‘curtilage’ whilst not strictly a term of art had caused considerable difficulties. There was nothing inherent in the concept to imply any limitation that the area should be small. In this case the curtilage of a manor house could . .
Cited – Attorney-General ex relater Sutcliffe and Others v Calderdale Borough Council CA 1982
The court discussed whether a terrace of cottages was within the curtilage of an old factory which was a listed building. At first instance, Skinner J had held that they were, and that permission could not be granted for their demolition. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.184989

The court asked whether a traditional gypsy who had lived permanently on a site for a long time, was a gypsy within section 16 and entitled to be excepted from local planning policy restraint on development.
Held: The criterion ‘nomadic way of life’ leads to a certain ambiguity, especially in relation to gypsies who settle for lengthy periods on authorised sites. Many gypsies, in the ethnic sense settle sometimes for several years. It may not be easy to determine whether they have lost their status as gypsies for the purpose of the relevant legislation. There must come a time when as matter of fact the nomadic habit of life has been lost. When it is lost the gypsy is no longer a gypsy for the purposes of the Act. He remains a gypsy by descent, by culture and by tradition, but that is not the issue. The question is whether he is a gypsy for the purposes of the relevant Acts.

Judges:

McCullough J

Citations:

Unreported 13 October 1989, Independent 31-Oct-1989

Statutes:

Caravan Sites Act 1968 6 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wrexham County Borough v The National Assembly of Wales, Michael Berry, Florence Berry CA 19-Jun-2003
A traditional gypsy family had settled because of ill health, and sought to establish a caravan site. The authority claimed they were no longer to be treated as Gypsy and having the entitlement under the Act.
Held: The Act defined ‘Gypsies’ as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.184235

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.136553

The claimant challenged a back to back agreement between the council and a developer where the council agreed to purchase compulsorily a plot of land against a developer’s undertaking to complete the development and indemnify the council against its costs.
Held: A local authority may use its powers of compulsory purchase to assemble a site for development by a preferred developer. The words ‘best terms’ permitted disposal for a consideration which was not the ‘best price’. So terms that would produce planning benefits and gains of value to the authority could be taken into account as well as terms resulting in cash benefits.
Lord Hope and Lord Brown accepted that account could be taken by a planning authority of the wider, off-site planning gains which would result from the exercise of its compulsory purchase powers.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

Times 20-Nov-2006, [2006] UKHL 50, 2007 SC (HL) 33

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 191

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – Standard Commercial Property Securities Limited for Judicial Review of A Decision Dated 26 August 1999 of Glasgow City Council OHCS 15-Aug-2000
. .
Appeal from – Standard Commercial Property Securities Limited Standard Commercial Property Developments Limited v Glasgow City Council Atlas Investments Limited for Judicial Review of Decisions of Glasgow City Counil OHCS 1-Jun-2004
. .
Appeal from – Standard Commercial Property Securities Limited Standard Commercial Property Development Limited v City of Glasgow Council Atlas Investments Limited for Judicial Review OHCS 3-Dec-2004
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Wolverhampton City Council and Another SC 12-May-2010
The appellant’s land was to be taken under compulsory purchase by the Council who wished to use it to assist Tesco in the construction of a new supermarket. Tesco promised to help fund restoration of a local listed building. Sainsbury objected an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246084

Objection had been made to a proposed shopping centre on the site of the former Ravenscraig steel mills, saying that it would provide excess capacity and went against the policy that priority should be given to permissions for town centres. The plan had been altered to designate it as in effect a new town centre. Objectors now appealed grant of the permission saying it did not apply the appropriate policy.
Held: The question was whether the alteration of the structure plan was invalid if the Minister had failed to have proper regard to the declared policy NPPG8 which required new policies and proposals to be consistent with the required sequential approch. The existing policy was designed to protect existing town centres and not to provide for the making of new town centres, and a new development could not obtain priority by being designated as a new town centre. ‘Nevertheless, once it is accepted that the vision behind the Structure Plan is that one day, within the lifetime of the Plan, there should be a town centre on that site as part of a larger development, then it makes sense for the Structure Plan to list it in schedule 1(a) and so try to promote investment in the site and ensure that the viability of this future town centre is not undermined in advance by, say, large retail or leisure developments on other sites in the vicinity. The effect of this addition to schedule 1(a) may not be to safeguard an existing town centre, but the Joint Committee were perfectly entitled to give effect in this way to a policy which is designed to promote investment and to protect the viability of what is intended to be the town centre at the heart of a development of national significance. ‘

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance

Citations:

[2006] UKHL 48, 2006 SCLR 908

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Wordie Property Co Limited v Secretary of State for Scotland 1984
To demonstrate an error of law in a decision, the petitioner is required to show that the decision maker had failed to take into account a consideration which was both relevant and material. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245609

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 enforcement proceedings. She answered that the time limit for enforcement was four years. The council said it was, as a change of use, ten years.
Held: The period was four years. Section 171B(2) specifically applied to this situation.
Sedley :J: ‘The legislation is unambiguous in first defining a failure to comply with any condition attached to a planning consent as a breach of planning control (s. 171A(1)(b)) and in then providing (s.171B(2)) that where such a breach consists in change of use to a single dwelling house, which was the case here, any enforcement action has to be taken within four years. ‘

Judges:

Auld LJ, Sedley LJ, Carnwath LJ

Citations:

Times 21-Sep-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1172, [2007] 1 WLR 523

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171B(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – London Borough of Camden v Backer and Aird CA 1982
The land-owner came to use the second storey of a house as a single dwelling-house where the planning permission for that second storey was conditional on its use only as storage ancillary to residential use of the remainder of the premises. The . .
Cited – Peacock Homes Ltd v Secretary of State CA 1984
. .
Cited – King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment 1995
David Keene QC said: ‘I note that whereas s171B(1) is confined to cases where the breach consists of the carrying out of operations without planning permission, that is to say one form of development, s. 171B(2) seems to apply to any breach of . .

Cited by:

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

Planning

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244209

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 have been signed, and the officer who formed the opinion was authorised. There was no sufficient evidence of contamination of the site to say the officer’s opinion was incorrect or inconsistent. The application was dismissed.
Ouseley J said: ‘the question of whether a local planning authority has sufficient information in order to be able to reach a proper judgment on its screening opinion is a matter for the relevant decision maker whose view is challengeable only on normal judicial review grounds. It is very much a matter of planning judgment, which depends on the facts of the given case. It may not therefore be very persuasive to take the circumstances of one case . . .and to try to use it as a measure by which other cases had been judged . . Indicative material can assist in judging whether the range of uncertainties is so great that a planning officer has insufficient knowledge to judge whether there are likely to be significant environmental effects or whether there are some site layouts or designs for which it can be said that they would be likely and then likely to have significant effects. The planning officer will also be able to make a judgment about the degree to which standard conditions can at that stage be envisaged as sufficient to make unlikely those developments layouts or components which would be likely to have significant environmental effects.’

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 3058 (Admin), [2004] JPL 950

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) England and Wales Regulations 1999 (1999 SI 293) 6 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Berkeley v Secretary of State For The Environment and Others HL 11-May-2000
The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for a new football ground for Fulham Football club, saying that an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been obtained, but was required.
Held: Where a planning application if . .
Cited – Provident Mutual Life Assurance Association v Derbyshire City Council HL 1981
The particular individual on whom the task of forming the relevant opinion had been imposed by statute could not possibly perform all the tasks delegated to the relevant financial officer. He had, and needed, a staff to perform his functions, and it . .
Cited – Cheshire County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment 1988
The court was asked as to the authority of an assistant solicitor to issue an enforcement notice when the standing orders which dealt with delegated powers referred in this context, but not in others, to the County Solicitor and Secretary alone. The . .
Cited – Regina v St Edmundsbury Borough Council (ex parte Walton) Admn 13-Apr-1999
The power to judge whether an application for planning permission would have substantial environmental effect was not capable of being exercised by an officer of the Council without an express delegation of that power. The decision as to whether . .
Cited – Regina (Goodman and Another) v Lewisham London Borough Council CA 14-Feb-2003
Claimants challenged the grant of planning consent for the construction of a storage and distribution facility without first undertaking an environmental impact assessment.
Held: The local authority had concluded that the project could not be . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of Lebus) v South Cambridgeshire District Council QBD 27-Aug-2002
The applicant opposed permission for an egg-production unit, alleging that an environmental impact assessment was required. The regulations required a screening review to assess whether an assessment was required. There was no formal record of a . .
Cited – Bellway Urban Renewal Southern v Gillespie CA 27-Mar-2003
The applicant appealed against a decision for development granted in the absence of its own decision. The judge had quashed the decision because of the absence of an environmental impact statement.
Held: When making the screening decision, it . .
Cited – Jones, Regina (on the Application of) v Mansfield District Council and Another CA 16-Oct-2003
Plannning permission was sought. Objectors said that it would have such an impact that an environmental impact assessment was required. They now sought judicial review of the decision to proceed without one.
Held: The judge had explained the . .
Cited – Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Andrew Tew; George Daniel Milne; and Steven Garner Admn 7-May-1999
An outline application for a shopping development, gave no details of the expected floor area, and nor was there an environmental assessment.
Held: The failure to give the floor area was not critical, but even at this stage the ommission of . .
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc and Bloomsbury Land Investments v Gloucester City Council Admn 26-Nov-2001
The land site to be developed was of archaeological interest and the relevance of a mitigation strategy was considered.
Held: It is for the planning authority to decide whether there are likely to be significant effects on the environment . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham And Others, ex parte Burkett and Another HL 23-May-2002
The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission for a development which would affect her. The authority objected that the application was made after three months after their decision, and so leave should not be . .

Cited by:

Cited – Friends of Basildon Golf Course v Basildon District Council and Another Admn 23-Jan-2009
The council owned land on which it ran a golf course. It set out to privatise it and sought interest. An application was made for planning permission. The applicants objected to the planning permission, saying that the Environmental Impact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.191217

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1001

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Contempt of Court

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.229206

Compensation – Planning Permission – Preliminary Issue – Whether Permission Deemed To Be Granted

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 327 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.656353

Appeal from refusal of permission to change use of land.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1203 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.637770

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1211 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.637776

The council had obtained a without notice injunction restraining Romany gypsies from stationing caravans on certain land. They subsequently applied for planning permission to use the land to have three mobile homes and several touring caravans. The application was refused and there was an appeal. Notwithstanding the injunction the caravans were moved onto the land. The judge had then ordered committal to imprisonment for contempt for a period of six weeks but suspended it on condition that the caravans be removed within about a fortnight.
Held: The appeal failed. However the local authority successful applied for committal. The judge had erred in refusing to vary the injunction. Mid Bedfordshire v Brown applied and the court did not regard as perverse the judge’s decision that the planning appeal had no real prospect of success.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 628, [2006] 18 EG 150

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Broxbourne Borough Council v Robb and Others QBD 27-Jun-2011
The Council applied for the committal of the defendant for an alleged breach of a without notice injunction. Notice of the injunction had been placed at the site, requiring nobody to move caravans onto the land.
Held: The application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241765

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1012 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Tapecrown Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another CA 21-Dec-2006
The appellants challenged an enforcement notice saying that it was a development ‘reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture’ within an agricultural unit of at least 5 hectares.
Held: Carnwath LJ, with whom the other members of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241740

Citations:

[2001] EWCA 13 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bhamjee, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another CA 29-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Bhamjee, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transpost and the Regions and Another Admn 9-Nov-2001
. .
See Also – Bhamjee, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and Another CA 28-Feb-2002
. .
See Also – Bhamjee v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another CA 21-Jun-2002
. .
See Also – Bhamjee v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another CA 21-Jun-2002
. .
See Also – Bhamjee, Re an Application for Permission Admn 14-Jul-2003
. .
See also – Bhamjee v Forsdick and Others (No 2) CA 25-Jul-2003
The Court set out the range of remedies available to protect court processes from abuse by litigants who persist in making applications totally devoid of merit. The courts are facing very serious contemporary problems created by the activities of . .
See Also – Attorney General v Bhamjee Admn 8-Dec-2003
Civil Restraint Order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241511

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Crim 413

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Planning

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638237

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Chadwick Sir Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 240

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239811

Challenge to extension of planning consent for temporary outfall from sewage treatment plant into the River Kent.

Judges:

Eyre QC HHJ

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1362 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637792

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2719 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Planning

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235879

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2825 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.220284

Citations:

[2017] NIQB 133

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Planning

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.636976

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2402 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235130

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1360

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234995

Judges:

Sir Michael Harrison

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2272 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Planning

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234567

The council had published a proposed revised local plan but withdrew it in the light of the new Planning Act.
Held: The freedom of a council to withdraw a revised plan was acknowledged. The requirement was only that the action be rational in the light of planning legislation objectives. There was nothing in the transitional provisions of the new system to prevent the action.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Mance LJ, patton J

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1221, Times 11-Nov-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Martin Grant Homes Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Wealden District Council Admn 4-Mar-2005
Where a council had already published proposals for its new local plan before the new planning Act was to come into effect, the council had a duty not to abandon the plan but had to apply the appropriate transitional provisions. . .
Cited – Persimmon Homes (Thames Valley) Ltd, Taywood Houses Ltd, Bryants Homes Southern Ltd, Garden Villages Partnership Plc v North Hertfordshire District Council, Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions Interested Party Admn 20-Jul-2001
The local authority placed a proposed local plan on deposit, but then, before it had adopted it they, purported to withdraw it. Objectors claimed they had no power to do so, and sought to review the decision. The statute contained express provisions . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231643

Application for leave to appeal from refusal of challenge to decision to issue enforcement notice.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 705

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.218158

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1693

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.217819

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1578

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.217638

Judges:

Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 566

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.181381

A legalistic approach to the interpretation of policies in local and other plans is to be avoided.

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 214, [1999] EWHC Admin 213, [1999] JPL 1113

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.139478

Judges:

Lord Chancellor, and Lords Blackburn and Watson

Citations:

[1995] UKHL 26, (1996) 71 P and CR 309, [2017] PTSR 1091, [1995] EG 94, 94 LGR 387

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.636771

Judges:

Morgan LCJ Girvan LJ and Coghlin LJ

Citations:

[2013] NICA 58

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Planning

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.552619

Citations:

[1963] 2 WLR 722, [1963] 2 All ER 175, [1964] 1 QB 77, [1963] 1 All ER 175

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Affirmed – Britt v Buckinghamshire County Council QBD 1962
The four years period limiting enforcement proceedings runs from the first date at which the enforcement notice could have been served. Widgery J said: ‘If the plaintiff can . . Show that a notice in the terms of that served could, on the facts . .

Cited by:

Cited – Thomas David (Porthcawl) Ltd and others v Penybont Rural District Council and others 5-Oct-1972
The appellant complained that an enforcement notice had been served as to an entire plot of land when the activities complained of, sand and gravel extraction, had occurred on only two smaller parts.
Held: The site should be looked at as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.246383

Judges:

Mr Justice Sullivan

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2375 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.236104