Category: Planning

The Noble Organisation Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Thanet District Council and others: CA 28 Jun 2005

The court dismissed an appeal against the refusal of permission to launch a judicial review. The court should examine applications for permission closely, since the process could be abused so that judicial review became merely a weapon in private battles between developers. Here the authority had properly granted a permission without requiring a further environmental impact assessment where the permission represented only a relatively minor addition to a substantial development scheme for which an assessment had been undertaken.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 782, Times 26-Aug-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227957

Pembrokeshire County Council v National Assembly for Wales, Re the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: Admn 16 Mar 2005

Judges:

Wyn Williams QC J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1103 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

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.

Planning

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226270

Land and Property Ltd v Restormel Borough Council: LT 9 Aug 2004

LT COMPENSATION – modification of planning permission by deletion of retail use from permitted development – depreciation in land value – no approval of reserved matters at valuation date – basis of valuation – whether it is to be assumed that approval granted – compensation for depreciation in land value, andpound;1,586,000 – abortive costs – professional fees – Town and Country Planning Act 1980, ss 73, 107(1)(2), 117(1); Land Compensation Act 1961, section 5.

Citations:

[2004] EWLands LCA – 47 – 2002

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961 5

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.

Planning, Land

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225811

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Alford: Admn 5 May 2005

The land owner had restored derelict farm buildings to previous levels of agricultural production. She had applied manure and calcified seaweed to the land. She appealed conviction for having carried out projects on land without satiisfying the screening requirements.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The Regulations implemented two EC directives which have a bearing on the control of projects for the use of uncultivated land and semi-natural areas in England for intensive agricultural purposes. An unauthorised increase in the intensity of agricultural use was not caught by the Regulations

Judges:

Brooke LJ, David Steel J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 808 (Admin), Times 30-May-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-natural Areas) (England) Regulations 2001 (2001 No

Citing:

Cited – Aannemersbedriijf P K Kraaijeveld v Gedeputeerde Staten Van Zuid-Holland ‘the Dutch-Dykes case) ECJ 24-Oct-1996
ECJ The fact that in this case the Member States have a discretion under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive does not preclude judicial review of the question whether the national authorities exceeded their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224546

Green, Regina (on the Application Of) v First Secretary of State and others: Admn 13 Apr 2005

Appeal was made against the decision to allow and refuse changes of use on land for the siting of caravans and mobile homes.

Judges:

Gibbs J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 691 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Carter and Another v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Carrick District Council CA 6-Apr-1994
The District Council issued an established user certificate for a caravan on the appellants’ lands. The appellants then replaced the caravan with a ‘park home’ for which planning permission was refused and enforcement notices were issued by the . .
Cited – Seddon Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment 1978
The court considered the degree of detail to be provided in a decision notice: ‘Since the courts will only interfere if he acts beyond his powers (which is the foundation of all the above principles), it is clear that his powers include the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224535

Karausta v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another: Admn 10 Oct 2002

The applicant sought planning permission extending the hours for her hot food take away after midnight. It was refused for the effect on local residents. She complained that the Inspector had failed to consider a shorter extension, and that another local shop did have such hours.
Held: The inspector was not obliged to consider suggestions not put to him. The Inspector had properly allowed that the questions engaged the applicants human rights, but had properly balanced her rights against public needs. The possible comparator might itself later have conditions imposed.

Judges:

Mr Justice Sullivan

Citations:

Gazette 24-Oct-2002

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.177493

United Trade Action Group Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Transport for London and Another: Admn 20 Jan 2021

Judges:

Mrs Justice Lang

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 72 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – United Trade Action Group Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Transport for London and Another (Evidence) Admn 20-Jan-2021
Ruling on the admissibility of evidence in two consolidated claims for judicial review. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Transport

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.657331

Etheridge v Secretary of State for the Environment: QBD 13 Oct 1983

The landowner had obtained outline permission but with details reserved. Later full permission was granted, but the authority refused to approve matters which had already been approved in the original outline permission, saying they were out of time.
Held: The respondent did have jurisdiction to hear the land-owner’s appeal. The grant of the full permission was effectively the same as approval of the detail reserved in the outline, and the appeal was not out of time.
Obiter the court said that a sufficent test was whether the operations carried out would be permitted under the permission read in combination with the conditions.

Judges:

Woolf J

Citations:

Times 13-Oct-1983, (1983) 48 PandCR 35

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1971 245

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – Oakimber Ltd v Elmbridge Borough Council CA 1991
Beldam LJ said: ‘On this reasoning it is unnecessary to consider the interesting argument addressed to the court that development carried out in breach of conditions can be regarded as development to which the permission related and whether for the . .
Cited – FG Whitley and Sons Co Ltd v Secretary of State for Wales CA 1992
The plaintiff had obtained conditional planning permission. It applied for approval of the meeting of the conditions but failed to receive a repy and had commenced work anyway. The authority then said that because the works had been begun before . .
Cited – Hart Aggregates Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Hartlepool Borough Council Admn 26-Apr-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.442414

Beazer Homes Ltd v Stroude: CA 17 Mar 2005

Mr S asserted a right as against the builders under a section 106 agreement. The builder said that evidence of what had occurred as a background to the agreement should be admitted. The parties had requested the judge to decide as a preliminary issue on the admissibility of that evidence.
Held: It was rarely wise to decide to the admissibility of evidence as a preliminary matter. It should be decided at trial by the judge who would be hearing the case and have a better grasp of the facts.
Mummery LJ said: ‘In general, disputes about the admissibility of evidence in civil proceedings are best left to be resolved by the judge at the substantive hearing of the application or at the trial of the action, rather than at a separate preliminary hearing. The judge at a preliminary hearing on admissibility will usually be less well informed about the case. Preliminary hearings can also cause unnecessary costs and delays.’

Judges:

Mummery LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 265, Times 28-Apr-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 106

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Contract, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223629

Hereford Waste Watchers Ltd v Hereford Council: Admn 18 Feb 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 191 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223383

Simmons v First Secretary of State, Sevenoaks District Council: Admn 2 Mar 2005

Challenge to a decision to uphold an enforcement notice requiring the claimant, a gipsy, to discontinue the use of land in the Green Belt and Special Landscape Area for stationing of caravans for residential purposes. The Secretary of State had declined to follow the recommendation of the inspector.
Held: The First Secretary had failed to take proper account of the evidence. The inspector had found very special circumstances. To obtain permission to develop land in the green belt, the inspector must look also at alternative sites. For the First Secretary to reject the inspector’s report on the basis that he had not done so, the First Secretary must at least look properly to see whether the Inspector had in fact made such consideration.

Judges:

Newman J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 287 (Admin), Times 15-Apr-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223385

Nunn, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and others: CA 8 Feb 2005

The operator sought permission to erect a mobile phone mast. The authority failed to serve notice of the decision to refuse prior approval. The applicant wished to object.
Held: The applicant had been deprived of her right to make objection to the application by the authortiy’s failure. If the authority had communicated its decision, she would have had opportunity to object, but her sole ways forward now were either by way of complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, or an action for damages against the local authority. It was the planning authority which appeared to be at fault.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 101, Times 23-Feb-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Zander v Sweden ECHR 25-Nov-1993
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings . .
Cited – Friends Provident Life and Pensions Limited v The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and Others Admn 30-Oct-2001
The application of the House of Lords’ ruling in Alconbury that the exercise of the section 77 call in power was not after all incompatible with article 6, it was unsuccessfully argued instead that a refusal to call in a planning application under . .
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 (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – Ortenberg v Autriche ECHR 25-Nov-1994
Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government, Human Rights

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222963

Bhamjee, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transpost and the Regions and Another: Admn 9 Nov 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWHC 1010 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Bhamjee v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transpost and the Regions and Another Admn 23-Jan-2001
. .
See Also – Bhamjee, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another CA 29-Jun-2001
. .

Cited by:

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 v Forsdick and others CA 14-May-2003
. .
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: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222032

United Trade Action Group Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Transport for London and Another (Evidence): Admn 20 Jan 2021

Ruling on the admissibility of evidence in two consolidated claims for judicial review.

Judges:

Mrs Justice Lang

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 73 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – United Trade Action Group Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Transport for London and Another Admn 20-Jan-2021
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Planning, Evidence

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.657332

Mid-Bedfordshire District Council v Thomas Brown and others: CA 20 Dec 2004

The land owners, gypsies, had purchased agricultural land intending to occupy it as residential land in breach of green belt planning controls. The council had obtained an injunction, but appealed its suspension.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The court had to balance several factors, but the land owners had acted in flagrant breach of court orders and planning controls. The difficulties and principals had been examined in the South Bucks case, and the question was whether the appellate court had power to intervene where, as here the judge at first instance had exercised his discretion to suspend the injunction pending the outcome of the planning application. The defendants were informed as to the steps they had to take to challenge the terms of the order, but had instead acted as if no order had been made. They had sought to steal a march on the council, and to undermine the court order. There was a real risk that the suspension of the order would appear to condone the breach, and would subvert the rule of law. In those circumstances it was proper to vary the injunction to give it immediate effect.
Mummery LJ said that suspension did allow for principle that court orders should be obeyed: ‘The proper course for the defendants to take, if they wished to challenge the order, was to apply to the court to discharge or modify the order. If that failed, the proper course was to seek to appeal. Instead of even attempting to follow the correct procedure, the defendants decided to press on as originally planned and as if no court order had ever been made. They cocked a snook at the court. They did so in order to steal a march on the council and to achieve the very state of affairs which the order was designed to prevent. No explanation or apology for the breaches of the court order was offered to the judge or to the court.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Jonathan Parker

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1709, Times 03-Jan-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 1460

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – South Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .
Cited – Coates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council CA 22-Oct-2004
The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the . .
Cited – Davis and Others v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council CA 26-Feb-2004
The claimants were travelling showmen who had purchased land, and after failing to apply for permission, moved onto the land and began to live there.
Held: The cultural identity of travelling show-people and their status, as a matter of . .

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: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220493

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

Judges:

Lord President And Lord Reed And Lord Kirkwood

Citations:

[2004] ScotCS 260

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 191

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – Standard Commercial Property Securities Limited for Judicial Review of A Decision Dated 26 August 1999 of Glasgow City Council OHCS 15-Aug-2000
. .
See Also – 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
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Standard Commercial Property Securities Ltd and others v Glasgow City Council and others HL 16-Nov-2006
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220058

St Leger-Davey and Another v First Secretary of State and others: CA 1 Dec 2004

The applicants challenged permission granted to erect mobile phone masts, saying that the operators should have made application to the County Court.
Held: the provisions referred to allowed the company to follow a county court procedure where they wanted to impose a mast. The provisions did not impose any obligation on the company to follow that route: ‘Neither statute nor planning policy guidance enjoins an applicant in the position of Orange to apply to the County Court ‘

Judges:

Pill LJ, Laws LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1612, Times 03-Dec-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Telecommunications Act 1984 Sch 2, Communications Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
Cited – Phillips v First Secretary of State and others Admn 22-Oct-2003
The claimant had objected to the grant of permission to erect a mobile phone mast near her property. The issue was that she had not been given opportunity to comment upon the consideration of alternative sites.
Held: The consideration of . .
Appeal from – Leger-Davey and Another v First Secretary of State and others Admn 1-Mar-2004
Objection to mobile phone mast . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219875

Regina (Cherwell District Council) v First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 28 Oct 2004

The applicant sought to develop an asylum centre. Rather than apply for planning permission, it had served a notice of proposed development for the Crown. The Council appealed dismissal of its objections to the use of the procedure.
Held: The appeal failed. The Crown was not subject to planning control. The section was to be used to protect persons other than the Crown from enforcement proceedings. The fact that the Crown could have applied for planning permission did not make the failure to do so an abuse of power, since safeguards remained, and the Crown could not be called upon to explain why it chose one procedure rather than another.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Dyson LJ, Munby J

Citations:

Times 04-Nov-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 1420, [2005] 1 WLR 1128

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 29491)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (Cherwell District Council) v First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 6-Apr-2004
A particular statutory or contractual context may require the phrase ‘on behalf of’ to be read more widely as meaning ‘in the place of’, or ‘for the benefit of’ or ‘in the interests of’. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd SC 12-Nov-2014
PPI Sale – No Recovery from Remote Parties
The claimant sought repayment of payment protection insurance premiums paid by her under a policy with Norwich Union. The immediate broker arranging the loan was now insolvent, and she sought repayment from the second and other level intermediaties. . .
Cited – Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd SC 12-Nov-2014
PPI Sale – No Recovery from Remote Parties
The claimant sought repayment of payment protection insurance premiums paid by her under a policy with Norwich Union. The immediate broker arranging the loan was now insolvent, and she sought repayment from the second and other level intermediaties. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219426

Clear Channel United Kingdom Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another: Admn 14 Oct 2004

The claimant sought a declaration that it had a tenancy for its occupation by an advertising station, and that it had protection under the 1954 Act. The defendant council said that only a licence had been granted.
Held: The grants included the areas surrounding the concrete bases on which the stations were erected. Despite the lease-like terms of the agreements, only licences had been granted since it was envisaged that the land owner could recover possession when required. The erection of the station was ‘expressed in the language of permissive use to place something on another’s land, and not as the grant of a proprietary interest in, and exclusive possession of, land.’

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2483 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 8, Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
Cited – Addiscombe Garden Estates Ltd v Crabbe CA 1957
The trustees of a tennis club took possession of tennis courts and a clubhouse under a lease, and sought a new lease under the 1954 Act. The landlord said that they were only licensees and in any event were not entitled to a new lease since they . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
Cited – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
Intention to Establish Adverse Possession of Land
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
Cited – Hagee (London) Ltd v A B Erikson and Larson (a Firm) CA 1975
Tenancy at Will not protectable by 1954 Act
A tenancy at will falls outside the protection of the 1954 Act, though ‘parties cannot impose upon an agreement, by a choice of label, a nature or character which on its proper construction it does not possess’. Entry into possession while . .
Cited – Cardiothoracic Institute v Shrewdcrest Ltd ChD 1986
The landlord hoped to redevelop a site. The defendant was in possession as a business tenant pursuant to three successive leases for which orders had been made under section 38(4) of the 1954 Act excluding the operation of sections 24 to 28 of the . .
Cited – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .
Cited – Wandsworth London Borough Council v Singh CA 1991
The Local Authority were lessees of some 500 square metres of public open space at St. Johns Hill in Wandsworth, which they and their horticultural sub-contractors visited periodically. It had been used by local inhabitants for leisure and . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Sinclair Collis Limited HL 7-Jun-2001
The appellants operated a system of placing their vending machines in clubs for the sale of cigarettes. They took as consideration a share of the profits of the cigarettes sold, and, in return, maintained the machines. They claimed that the machines . .
Cited – Wallace v C Brian Barratt and Son Limited and Lock CA 19-Mar-1997
The court was asked whether the defendant company, which was the tenant under an agricultural tenancy agreement of land comprising arable fields, was in breach of a covenant in the tenancy not to assign, underlet, or part with or share possession or . .
Cited – Graysim Holdings Ltd v P and O Property Holdings Ltd HL 24-Nov-1995
A market hall had been let to a tenant under a lease. The tenant fitted out the entire hall with stalls and entered into agreements with the stallholders, by which they paid the tenant a rent and service charge for services provided by the tenant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Media, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219260

Derbyshire Waste Ltd v Blewett and Another: CA 11 Nov 2004

Glapswell Colliery had closed. The owners sought to use it for waste disposal by landfill. The objector had obtained judicial review of the permission granted.
Held: The intention of the Landfill Directive was to discourage its use other than as a last resort. Though the Directive was part of English law, by affecting the weight to be given to such considerations. That weight might still be overborne by other considerations. It was not a precondition of a landfill permission that it be the best practicable environmental option. In this cas the local authority had not prepared a waste management strategy, nor set down what it considered to be the best environmental option, and its decision was so seriously flawed as to have been unlawful.

Judges:

Auld LJ, Buxton LJ, Laws LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1508, Times 12-Nov-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landfill Directive 1991/31/EC, Council Directive 75/442/EC on Waste

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Blewett, Regina (on the Application of) v Derbyshire County Council Admn 7-Nov-2003
Mr Blewett sought judicial review, quashing on three grounds a planning permission given by the Derbyshire County Council to Derbyshire Waste to use land at the former Glapwell Colliery in North-East Derbyshire, for ‘land reclamation by waste . .
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 – Ministere public v Oscar Traen and others ECJ 12-May-1987
Articles 8 to 12 of Directive 75/442 on waste cover all waste-disposal activities and do not impose any limitation relating to the legal status of the operator or the frequency or purpose of the activities concerned. Article 5 of the directive does . .
Cited – Commune de Braine-le-Chateau and Michel Tillieut and Others v Region Wallonee ECJ 1-Apr-2004
ECJ Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Waste – Management plans – Suitable sites and installations for waste disposal – Permit granted in the absence of a management plan containing a map specifying planned . .
Cited – Thornby Farms Ltd, Murray v Daventry District Council, Derbyshire County Council CA 22-Jan-2002
Two parties appealed against the grant of licences for plants for the disposal of animal carcasses. The plants would increase the amount of emissions into the environment.
Held: An objective was different to a material consideration. An . .
Cited – Commission of the European Communities (Supported by the United Kingdom) v Hellenic Republic ECJ 7-Jul-2000
When assessing the penalty to be imposed on a member state for failing to comply with a judgement of the court the court had to look at the duration of the breach, its seriousness, and its ability to pay. Here a fine of 20.000 Euros per day was . .
Cited – Commission v United Kingdom ECJ 24-Jan-2002
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Environment – Waste -Directives – Waste management plans. ‘The United Kingdom does not dispute its alleged failure to meet its obligations. It admits . .
Cited – Commission v France ECJ 2-May-2002
Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Environment – Waste – Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/156/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC – Waste management plans: ‘ . . considering the objectives pursued by the obligation laid down in Article 7(1) of . .
Cited – Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
Cited – AvestaPolarit Chrome Oy ECJ 11-Sep-2003
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: Korkein hallinto-oikeus – Finland. Approximation of laws – Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Meaning of waste – Production residue – Mine – Use – Storage – Article . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219327

Coates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council: CA 22 Oct 2004

The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the interference with their human rights.
Held: ‘The judge’s reasons should make clear to the parties why he has reached his decision. Where he has had to balance competing factors it will usually be possible to explain why he has concluded that some have outweighed others. Even where the competition is so unequal that the factors speak for themselves it is desirable to say so.’ The plight of Gypsies or others who travel in caravans with no permanent place to rest is an unhappy one. They can rightly complain that their plight reflects a failure on the part of some authorities to comply with their statutory duty to provide sites for such Travellers. That cannot, however, entitle them to stop wherever they choose and contend that their rights under Article 8 entitle them to remain. Here the factors that I have outlined make the overall picture particularly unattractive. The site chosen was a very sensitive part of the green belt. It was a site where Gypsies had already fought and lost a lengthy planning battle. The appeal was dismissed. Sedley LJ (dissenting) said: ‘While the history of contumacious defiance both of the planning regime and of the court’s orders has placed the defendants in the worst possible position to ask for the court’s help, these people, unlawfully and defiantly though they have behaved, at least have the excuse that for 25 years local authorities throughout England and Wales failed to carry out their statutory duty to provide proper sites in substitution for the commons they were energetically ditching and fencing against entry by caravans, and that central government failed consistently to exercise its statutory enforcement powers against these local authorities’

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Lord Justice Sedley and Lord Justice Nueberger

Citations:

Times 27-Oct-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 1378

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Coates and others v South Bucks District Council ChD 27-Jan-2004
. .
Cited – Wrexham 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 . .
Cited – Gallagher v Castle Vale Action Trust Ltd CA 23-Feb-2001
The court emphasised the need not merely to identify the relevant factors that weigh in each direction when considering whether to make an order for possession in a nuisance case, but to explain clearly why it is or is not proportionate to interfere . .
Cited – Lambeth London Borough Council v Howard CA 6-Mar-2001
Any attempt to evict a person, whether directly or indirectly or by process of law, from his or her home is on the face of it a derogation from the respect to which the home is prima facie entitled. Courts should be careful fully to explain any . .
Cited – Davis and Others v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council CA 26-Feb-2004
The claimants were travelling showmen who had purchased land, and after failing to apply for permission, moved onto the land and began to live there.
Held: The cultural identity of travelling show-people and their status, as a matter of . .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – The First Secretary of State, Grant Doe, Gregory Yates, Paul Eames v Chichester District Council CA 29-Sep-2004
The appellants challenged a decision to grant planning consent for a private gipsy with mobile homes. The issue was whether the council in refusing permission and in issuing enforcement proceedings, had infringed the applicants human rights. The . .
Cited – Regina v Lincolnshire County Council Ex Parte Atkinson; Regina v Wealden District Council Ex Parte Wales and Others QBD 3-Oct-1995
A local Authority must make proper welfare enquiries before seeking to remove unlawful campers. The new draconic legislation must be seen in its context. The commons of England provided lawful stopping places for people whose way of life was or had . .
Cited – Chapman v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 18-Jan-2001
The question arose as to the refusal of planning permission and the service of an enforcement notice against Mrs Chapman who wished to place her caravan on a plot of land in the Green Belt. The refusal of planning permission and the enforcement . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Coates and others v South Bucks District Council ChD 27-Jan-2004
. .
Cited – Mid-Bedfordshire District Council v Thomas Brown and others CA 20-Dec-2004
The land owners, gypsies, had purchased agricultural land intending to occupy it as residential land in breach of green belt planning controls. The council had obtained an injunction, but appealed its suspension.
Held: The council’s appeal . .
Cited – Wilson v Wychavon District Council and Another Admn 20-Dec-2005
The claimant complained that the law which protected an occupier of a dwelling house from a temporary stop notice did not apply to those living in caravans, and that this was discriminatory.
Held: The claim failed. ‘usually a change of use of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218710

Barker, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Bromley: CA 23 Nov 2001

The court considered when time began to run for an application for judicial review where the question arose in the context of an outline planning permission granted subject to the approval of reserved matters.
The claimant challenged proposed development of the Crystal Palace site.

Judges:

Brooke, Latham LJJ, Burton J

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1766, [2002] Env LR 631, [2002] Env LR 25, [2001] 49 EGCS 117, [2001] NPC 170, [2002] 2 P and CR 8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Barker v London Borough of Bromley Admn 23-Nov-2001
The claimant challenged the grant of outline permission to develop the Crystal Palace, arguing that no Environmental Assessment had taken place. The need for one depended upon whether the directive had been properly incorporated into English Law. . .
See Also – Barker, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Bromley and Another CA 8-Feb-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218495

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, Regina (on The Application of) v Highways England: Admn 16 Nov 2018

‘Did the defendant, Highways England, act unlawfully by declining to include, in a consultation about a new access route to the Port of Liverpool, the option of building a tunnel under the Rimrose Valley? That is the main issue in this application brought by the claimant (the council). ‘

Judges:

Kerr J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 3059 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.630568

Patel v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and The Regions and Another: Admn 2 Sep 2002

The claimant sought to set aside planning permission given to a neighbour to erect an extension saying that the decision had been based on a policy which was out of date.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWHC 1963 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.402517

Coates and others v South Bucks District Council: ChD 27 Jan 2004

Judges:

Penry-Davey J

Citations:

Unreported, 27 January 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Coates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council CA 22-Oct-2004
The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the . .
Applied – Wrexham 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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Coates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council CA 22-Oct-2004
The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219087

Bhamjee, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another: CA 29 Jun 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1072

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Bhamjee v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transpost and the Regions and Another Admn 23-Jan-2001
. .

Cited by:

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 v Forsdick and others CA 14-May-2003
. .
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: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218223

Bhamjee v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another: CA 21 Jun 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 987

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Bhamjee v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transpost and the Regions and Another Admn 23-Jan-2001
. .
See Also – 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
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Bhamjee v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another CA 21-Jun-2002
. .
See also – Bhamjee v Forsdick and others CA 14-May-2003
. .
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: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217271

Wall and Others v Winchester City Council and Another: CA 17 Mar 2015

Appeal from an order allowing Winchester City Council’s appeal, under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a decision of one of the Secretary of State’s Planning Inspectors to allow the respondent’s appeals against six enforcement notices (enforcement notices A to F) issued by the Council in respect of land at Micheldever in Hampshire.

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 563

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.548996

The First Secretary of State, Grant Doe, Gregory Yates, Paul Eames v Chichester District Council: CA 29 Sep 2004

The appellants challenged a decision to grant planning consent for a private gipsy with mobile homes. The issue was whether the council in refusing permission and in issuing enforcement proceedings, had infringed the applicants human rights. The planning guidance required authorities to provide sites, but against other planning priorities. The Inspector had found little planning impact from the unlawful development, and the effect on their family life substantial.
Held: The judge had erred. The Inspector had correctly applied Article 8 rights.and without convert them into ‘the broader proposition that the needs of gypsies ‘must be met’.’ (Auld LJ dissenting)

Judges:

The Right Honourable Lord Justice Auld, The Right Honourable Lord Justice Wall And The Honourable Mr Justice Pumfrey

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1248, Times 14-Oct-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hedges and Hedges v Secretary of State for Environment v East Cambridgeshire District Council Admn 15-Nov-1996
. .
Cited – Regina v Leominster District Council ex parte Pothecary CA 28-Oct-1997
A building was erected without planning permission. The local planning authority chose not to serve an enforcement notice but rather had invited an application for retrospective planning permission.
Held: The fact that a building has already . .
Cited – Chapman v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 18-Jan-2001
The question arose as to the refusal of planning permission and the service of an enforcement notice against Mrs Chapman who wished to place her caravan on a plot of land in the Green Belt. The refusal of planning permission and the enforcement . .
Appeal from – Chichester District Council v First Secretary of State and others Admn 29-Jul-2003
. .
Cited – Botta v Italy ECHR 24-Feb-1998
The claimant, who was disabled, said that his Article 8 rights were infringed because, in breach of Italian law, there were no facilities to enable him to get to the sea when he went on holiday.
Held: ‘Private life . . includes a person’s . .
Cited – Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark CA 16-Oct-2003
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Coates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council CA 22-Oct-2004
The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214642

Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, etc: ECJ 7 Sep 2004

ECJ Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna – Concept of ‘plan’ or ‘project’ – Assessment of the implications of certain plans or projects for the protected site.
‘other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources’ – clearly applies to activities, such as mining or quarrying, or dragging for cockles.

Citations:

C-127/02, [2004] EUECJ C-127/02, [2005] Env LR 14, [2005] 2 CMLR 31, [2004] NPC 136, [2005] All ER (EC) 353, [2004] ECR-7405

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Edwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency HL 16-Apr-2008
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .
Cited – Boggis and Another v Natural England CA 20-Oct-2009
Natural England appealed against the quashing of an SSSI.
Held: The notification of an SSSI was not the making of a plan as respects the land affected, but the flagging up of it. The real purpose of the proceedings was to allow the land owners . .
Cited – Save 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 . .
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.

Environment, Planning

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214233

Secondsite Property Holdings Ltd v Borough of Poole: Admn 22 Oct 2004

Objection to allocation of land to employment pool under local planning policy.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2526 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

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.

Planning

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.219271

Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Rushmoor Borough Council Pillar (Farnborough) Ltd: Admn 9 Sep 2004

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2094 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Applied – Martin v David Wilson Homes Ltd CA 28-Jun-2004
The court considered the construction of a restrictive covenant, and was asked whether an indefinite article ‘a private dwellinghouse’ was to be construed as a limitation of number or whether it was to be construed as being as to the manner of use. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.211416

Tendring District Council and Others v Persons Unknown: QBD 4 Aug 2016

The applicant councils were host within their area the Clacton-On – sea Airshow, and sought an injunction against the world at large to prevent them causing disruption by the parking of mobile homes and similar on roads in the area

Judges:

Knowles J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2050 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Planning

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.569081

Mansi v Elstree Rural District Council: QBD 1964

The local planning authority served an enforcement notice reciting that the appellant had changed the use of a glasshouse on a nursery garden from use for agricultural purposes to the use for the sale of goods and requiring the appellant to discontinue the latter use. No reference was made in the notice to the former subsidiary use for the retail sale of nursery produce and other articles nor was there any provision for its continuance. The court held that the Minister ought to have amended the notice under the powers given to him so as to make it perfectly clear that the notice did not prevent the appellant from using the premises for the sale of goods by retail, provided that such sale was on the scale and in the manner to which he was entitled in 1959, as the Minister himself had found. True that use was a subsidiary one, but nevertheless it should be protected and, in my judgment, this appeal should be allowed to the extent that the decision in question should be sent back to the Minister with a direction that he ought to amend the notice so as to safeguard the appellant’s established right as found by the Minister to carry on retail trade in the manner and to the extent to which the Minister had found it was carried on in 1959.

Judges:

Widgery J

Citations:

(1964) 16 P and CR 158

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, Agriculture

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.183688

Warwick District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Others: Admn 2 Oct 2001

The second respondent extended their facilities at their abattoir to include more lairage. It was done without planning permission, and the abattoir was in the Green Belt. After an enquiry following a challenge of an enforcement notice, the inspector found that the damage to the green belt was slight. Removing the facility would not decrease traffic, and would compromise animal welfare. The authority challenged the decision saying that the inspector had not allowed for the possible reduced level of business which would follow the satisfaction of the enforcement notice. Held though the decision was criticised, the inspector had taken account of such issues and the decision could not be set aside.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

Gazette 11-Oct-2001

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Agriculture, Animals

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.166538