Category: Planning

Sage v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others: HL 10 Apr 2003

The appellant had challenged an enforcement notice requiring him to pull down a partially built house. The issue was when the four year limitation period had commenced. Did the four year limitation period commence when the works were complete, or when the building was complete?
Held: The inspector had found the building to be a dwelling in the course of construction. Further works might not affect the exterior, but would not fall within section 55(2)(a) until the building works had been completed. The breach of planning control would not have been exhausted but would be continuing.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

[2003] UKHL 22, Times 11-Apr-2003, [2003] NPC 51, [2003] 16 EGCS 102, [2003] 2 All ER 689, [2003] JPL 1299, [2003] 1 WLR 983, [2003] 2 P and CR 26

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 55(2)(a) 171(B)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Belmont Farm Ltd v MHLG 1962
. .
Cited – Mckay and Walker v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 1989
The court considered a test as to whether a building was constructed for human habitation and not for agricultural use, using its physical layout and appearance. . .
Cited – Ewen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1980
The court upheld an enforcement notice requiring that the whole of an embankment be removed. . .
Cited – Somak Travel v London Borough of Brent 1987
There had been an unauthorised change of use case from residential to commercial use. The notice not only required the cessation of the commercial use but also the removal of an internal staircase which had been put in to facilitate that use though . .
Cited – Howes v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 1984
The inspector had directed himself that the removal of a hedge and the creation of an access was ‘a continuous operation and each step in the work prolong[ed] the period for serving the enforcement notice as regards every earlier step of the . .

Cited by:

Distinguished – Fidler v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council Admn 3-Feb-2010
The landowner had concealed his new building (a mock Tudor castle) under straw bales 40′ high, and now appealed against dismissal of his challenge to enforcement orders. He said that the building had been substantially completed more than four years . .
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, Limitation

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180699

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 cannot be assumed that at each stage a favourable and satisfactory result will be achieved. There will be cases in which the uncertainties are such that a decision that a project is unlikely to have significant effects on the environment could not properly be reached. The test applied was not the correct one. The error was in the assumption that the investigations and works contemplated could be treated, at the time of the screening decision, as having had a successful outcome.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Laws And Lady Justice Arden DBE

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 400, Times 07-Apr-2003, Gazette 10-Apr-2003, [2003] JPL 1287, [2003] 2 P and CR 16, [2003] Env LR 30, [2003] 3 PLR 20, [2003] 14 EG 123

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – 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 . .
Appeal from – Gillespie v Secretary of State and Another Admn 20-Jan-2003
. .

Cited by:

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 – Younger Homes (Northern) Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 26-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to quash a planning decision on the basis that a screening decision had not been made.
Held: Though the procedures within the authority could have been bettered, there was no formal requirement for a screening option to . .
Cited – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180124

Wandsworth London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: CA 19 Feb 2003

The applicant sought permission for a supermarket. It would fall mostly within the Lambeth area, but also in part in a neighbouring borough. One classified the development as a ‘neighbourhood centre’, but the appellant authority classified the shops as ‘important local parades’. The inspector found that it was not in a town centre within the guidance, and so was not a preferred area for development. The Secretary of State said the term ‘town centre’ in the Caborn statement should be interpreted more widely, and that under such interpretation, it was a centre development.
Held: The Caborn statement was capable of the wider interpretation applied (Tesco). The secretary had had no obligation to refer to the actual function served by the centre, and could rely upon the reasons given by the inspector. The appeal was dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Ward

Citations:

Gazette 27-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 142

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Caborn Statement (written Parliamentary answer of 11 February 1999), Planning Policy Guidance 6 (PPG 6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions QBD 11-Jan-2001
The Secretary called in a decision of the inspector to permit the building of a supermarket, and reversed the decision, holding that a need had been demonstrated, but that the inspector had been insufficiently flexible in applying the sequential . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179489

Medway Council and Kent County Council, Essex County Council, Mead; Fossett v Secretary of State for Transport: Admn 26 Nov 2002

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay <

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2516 (Admn), [2003] JPL 583, [2002] 49 EG 123

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Moseley, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Haringey SC 29-Oct-2014
Consultation requirements
The claimant challenged a decision of the respondent reducing the benefits under the Council Tax Reduction Scheme reducing Council Tax for those in need, saying that the Council’s consultation had been inadequate.
Held: The consultation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Planning, Transport

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178479

Earthline Limited v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and West Berkshire Council: CA 6 Nov 2002

A mining permission, allowing extraction of gravels, had been given the wrong date for its termination. Under the original Act, the permission would expire in 2042. In stating the terms for the licence, the mineral planning authority had mistakenly set the date at 2001. No appeal had then been made.
Held: The council had had no power to limit the extraction in the way it had. The issue was whether a subsequent operator had the right now to challenge the permission. The ‘no certiorari’ rule did not apply to an unappealed determination of the mineral planning authority. It would take very clear language to remove a right given by statute. A court has jurisdiction to grant a declaration, in a private law action, that a planning condition is invalid, and an invalid planning condition in a planning permission may be challenged long after the date on which the permission was granted

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Keene, Mr Justice Bodey

Citations:

Times 20-Nov-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1599, [2003] 1 PandCR 24, [2003] JPL 715

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Planning and Compensation Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority CA 17-Jun-2005
In 1952, the Minister wrote a leter confirming the planning permissions for four quarries now owned by the claimants. In 1996, two of the quarries were separately included in a list of dormant sites, and in 19999 the applicant began to apply for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178211

Regina (on the Application of Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council Ltd: CA 9 Oct 2002

The applicant sought a judicial review of a grant of planning permission. She said that in the considerable time gap between the decision in principle, and the decision notice, several elements had changed requiring the decision to be reconsidered.
Held: Review was refused. The section required the authority to have regard to all material considerations in dealing with the application. ‘Dealing with’ was a wide phrase included anything done which bore in any way on the application, and included administrative acts of the officers. It could not be restricted to the formal actions involved in the grant of the permission. On this background, the authority had taken all the materials into consideration.
Jonathan Parker LJ defined what considerations were material in this context: ‘In my judgment a consideration is ‘material’, in this context, if it is relevant to the question whether the application should be granted or refused; that is to say if it is a factor which, when placed in the decision maker’s scales, would tip the balance to some extent, one way or the other. In other words, it must be a factor which has some weight in the decision making process, although plainly it may not be determinative. The test must, of course, be an objective one in the sense that the choice of material considerations must be a rational one, and the considerations chosen must be rationally related to land use issues.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Jonathon Parker

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1370, Times 15-Oct-2002, Gazette 07-Nov-2002, [2003] JPL 431, [2003] 1 P and CR 19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 70(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (on the Application of Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council Admn 30-Oct-2001
The court refused an application for judicial review of the grant of planning permission. There had been a considerable delay between the decision to make the grant and the decision notice, during which time guidance had changed.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina (on the Application of Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council Admn 30-Oct-2001
The court refused an application for judicial review of the grant of planning permission. There had been a considerable delay between the decision to make the grant and the decision notice, during which time guidance had changed.
Held: The . .
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 . .
Cited – Hinds, Regina (on The Application of) v Blackpool Council Admn 17-Mar-2011
The council had resolved to grant planning permission for a development, but before the permission was actually granted the Secretary of State had written to planning authorities saying that he intended to abolish the ‘Regional Spatial Strategies’. . .
Cited – Dry, Regina (on The Application of) v West Oxfordshire District Council and Taylor Wimpey CA 21-Oct-2010
The guidance contained in Kides must be applied with common sense and with regard to the facts of the particular case. . .
Cited – Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire, Regina (on The Application of) v Hallam Land Management Ltd and Others Admn 27-May-2014
The claimant challenged a planning permission for a substantial development, and in particular the terms of the associated section 106 agreement. The claimant was concerened that the terms might allow a sufficient development to required additional . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177439

Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Ex Parte Trustees of the Council for the Protection of Rural England: CA 12 Jun 2000

Citations:

Unreported, 12 June 2000

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: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.246410

J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Oxford City Council: CA 30 Jul 2002

The company appealed against refusal of an application for an order quashing the decision of the Council to adopt Supplementary Planning Guidance on social housing, an order declaring that the Council was not entitled to adopt policies contained in the SPG as non-statutory policies and a declaration that the Council was under a duty to promote policies for social housing in a review of the Oxford Local Plan, including policies of the kind contained in SPG.

Judges:

Pill, Mummery LJJ, Nelson J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1116, [2002] All ER (D) 458, [2003] JPL 45

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: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175227

Rugby Football Union v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another: CA 17 Jul 2002

The land owner sought a certificate of lawful use for its Rugby Stadium which had been used as a concert stadium.
Held: The court must look to the Order to see whether the proposed use fell within the same use class as the existing use. A sports stadium use was class D2(e), but a concert could not be regarded as use within class D2(b), since an open air ground was not a concert hall, and nor was use for concerts ‘other sport or recreation’. If the class was not limited to exclude concerts the rest of the paragraph would be otiose.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Longmore and Mr Justice Ferris

Citations:

Times 13-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1169

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 192, Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987 (SI 1987 No 764)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At QBD – Rugby Football Union v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another QBD 25-Oct-2001
The owners of a rugby football stadium were not entitled to a certificate of lawfulness of a proposed use under the section, for the use of the stadium as an open air concert hall. The idea of a concert hall required the idea that it should be a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174699

Adlard and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Fulham Stadium Ltd: CA 17 May 2002

The landowners sought permission to redevelop their football stadium. The authority were minded to grant the permission, and after an enquiry, permission was granted, but in the meantime another permission was proposed for a larger stadium. This was not called in, depriving the applicants of their opportunity to make their objections, and did not give reasons for not calling it in. The applicants sought the right to make oral representations.
Held: The objector’s argument came close to suggesting that any objector’s argument must be heard by a public enquiry. Planning decisions are ones of expediency. Where the decision depended upon argument, rather than assessment of facts, the need for oral hearings was much reduced. The general power to determine planning applications is with local authorities, and the secretary’s interventions are appropriate to achieve coherence and consistency. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

Times 31-May-2002, Gazette 27-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 671

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 77, European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171254

County Properties Limited v The Scottish Ministers: OHCS 25 Jul 2000

The company applied for planning permission. The Secretary of State called in the application to be decided by a reporter. The applicant complained that this infringed its right to a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Such a person might deal with issues of fact, but here he would also be making the decision, and the objection was lodged by an agency for which the Secretary was responsible. The Secretary was judge in his own cause.

Judges:

Lord Macfadyen

Citations:

Times 19-Sep-2000, [2000] ScotCS 212, 2000 SLT 965

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appealed to – County Properties Limited v The Scottish Ministers for Judicial Review IHCS 16-Aug-2001
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – County Properties Limited v The Scottish Ministers for Judicial Review IHCS 16-Aug-2001
. .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Planning

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.169250

County Properties Limited v The Scottish Ministers for Judicial Review: IHCS 16 Aug 2001

Judges:

Lord Prosser and Lord Kirkwood and Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

Citations:

[2001] ScotCS 206, [2001] ScotHC 87

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Protection of Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – County Properties Limited v The Scottish Ministers OHCS 25-Jul-2000
The company applied for planning permission. The Secretary of State called in the application to be decided by a reporter. The applicant complained that this infringed its right to a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Such a person might deal . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – County Properties Limited v The Scottish Ministers OHCS 25-Jul-2000
The company applied for planning permission. The Secretary of State called in the application to be decided by a reporter. The applicant complained that this infringed its right to a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Such a person might deal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Planning

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168934

Petition of Blue Circle Industries Plc for Judicial Review: OHCS 20 Sep 2001

Judicial Review was sought of a decision of a Reporter determining the Petitioners’ planning appeal, to refuse to sist a planning appeal. The local plan was going to appeal, and the reporter wanted to await the outcome. The court did not find any procedural unfairness or impropriety warranting the interference of the Court; or any material misdirection in law on the part of the Reporter; or that the refusal constituted a decision which was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.

Judges:

Lord Eassie

Citations:

[2001] ScotHC 104, [2001] ScotCS 221

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 47(2)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Planning

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168923

Edward Ware New Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions: Admn 19 Dec 2001

The applicant sought planning permission to pull down some buildings formerly used as a mushroom farm. The application was refused on the ground that it would remain available for industrial use. The applicant contended it would be low grade use. The inspector found that the dilapidated condition of the buildings made it unlikely that any industrial use would be economic. There were also green belt difficulties.
Held: There had been evidence to support the inspector’s view as to the viability of the use. The appellant complained that it had not had a fair crack of the whip, in that the report followed lines not covered by the enquiry. However those issues had been explored. The appeal failed.

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 1131

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 78

Citing:

Cited – Fairmount Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1976
A local authority had made a compulsory purchase order which was challenged and an inquiry was held. The inspector, after the conclusion of the hearing, conducted his own inspection of the premises as a result of which he concluded that the . .
Cited – Castleford Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Admn 2-Feb-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168012

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 objective was something to be kept in mind at all stages of an assessment, and even when considering other matters. The objective of both the Directive and the Act was to find the best overall technique, but without incurring excessive costs. There was no requirement to refuse permission because there was no immediate need for the land or because the decision made no positive contribution to meeting the objective.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And, Mr Justice Laddie

Citations:

Gazette 15-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 31, [2003] QB 503

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC as amended by 91/156/EEC and 96/350/EEC), Environmental Protection Act 1990 7(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Daventry District Council ex parte Thornby Farms Admn 28-Jul-2000
The council granted licences for the disposal of waste animal carcasses by incineration. The objectors said the council had failed to take note of art 4 of the directive, and that as clinical waste alternative regimes applied.
Held: Animal . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v Daventry District Council ex parte Thornby Farms Admn 28-Jul-2000
The council granted licences for the disposal of waste animal carcasses by incineration. The objectors said the council had failed to take note of art 4 of the directive, and that as clinical waste alternative regimes applied.
Held: Animal . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Planning

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167473

Welwyn Hatfield Council, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 7 Apr 2009

The council appealed against the decision of the inspector that the land-owner should be granted a certificate of lawful development.
Held: Collins J over-turned the inspector’s decision. He viewed the building as the permitted barn, but went on to hold that there had never been any intention to use the building other than as a dwelling house, and that this meant that there had not been a change of use within section 171B(2).

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 966 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Welwyn Hatfield Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 29-Jan-2010
The land owner had received planning consent to erect a barn. Instead he constructed a house, but disguised it.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Once the house had been used as such for four years, the authority was obliged to issue the certificate . .
At first Instance – 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: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.343062

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 warranting an environmental statement. They cannot conclude that there would be significant effects, save for the fact that they have required (or at least will require) the developer to take mitigating steps whose effect is to render such effects insignificant. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2, sets out the information required and requires that there is a description of the measures envisaged to ‘avoid, reduce and if possible remedy’ adverse effects. The purpose is to enable public discussion to take place about whether the measures will be successful, or perhaps whether more effective measures can be taken than those proposed to ameliorate the anticipated harm. The question whether there are likely to be significant environmental effects should be approached by asking whether these would be likely to result, absent some specific measures being taken to reduce them. If they would, the environmental statement is required and the mitigating measures must be identified in it. In this case there would be potentially highly significant effects on the archaeology, unless measures are directed to eliminate them. Accordingly, the officer erred in law in taking these measures into account when deciding that no significant effect was likely.

Judges:

Elias J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 1001, [2002] JPL 993

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 – Younger Homes (Northern) Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 26-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to quash a planning decision on the basis that a screening decision had not been made.
Held: Though the procedures within the authority could have been bettered, there was no formal requirement for a screening option to . .
Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council, Catherine Mary Robinson ChD 22-Jan-2004
Land had been registered in part as a common. The council appealed.
Held: The rights pre-existing the Act had not been lost. The presumption against retrospectively disapplying vested rights applied, and the application had properly been made. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167275

J S Bloor Ltd and Another v Swindon Borough Council and Others: Admn 23 Nov 2001

Whether a planning policy was a general one to be included in the structure plan, or a detailed one to be included in the local plan, was a matter of judgement by the local authority, provided only that it directed itself correctly as to the meaning of ‘general policies’ as set down in statute and case law. It was not necessary for a general plan made by two neighbouring authorities to deal with land in both boroughs.

Judges:

Justice Ouseley

Citations:

Times 04-Dec-2001, Gazette 04-Jan-2002, [2001] EWHC Admin 966

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 31(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.166943

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

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

PPG 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88681

Impey v Secretary of State for the Environment: QBD 2 Jan 1983

The owner of a dog kennels carried out works both internal and external to change the building into two residential units. The Council served an improvement notice. The respondent found that no material change of use had yet taken place.
Held: The change of use could take place before the building was actually used for the new use. Both the physical state of the premises and the owner’s intentions could be taken into account. In this case the evidence was inconclusive and the matter was remitted.
The court was asked whether development had occurred in the form of a material change of use of a building from the breeding of dogs to residential use.
Donaldson LJ said: ‘Change of use to residential development can take place before the premises are used in the ordinary and accepted sense of the word, and [counsel] gives by way of example cases where operations are undertaken to convert premises for residential use and they are then put on the market as being available for letting. Nobody is using those premises in the ordinary connotation of the term, because they are empty, but there has plainly, on those facts, been a change of use.
The question arises as to how much earlier there can be a change of use. Before the operations have been begun to convert to residential accommodation plainly there has been no change of use, assuming that the premises are not in the ordinary sense of the word being used for residential purposes. It may well be that during the course of the operations the premises will be wholly unusable for residential purposes. It may be that the test is whether they are usable, but it is a question of fact and degree.’

Judges:

Donaldson LJ

Citations:

(1984) 47 P and CR 157

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1971 290(5)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Doubted – Backer v Secretary of State for the Environment 1983
Complaint was made that the occupier had taken up occupation of a vehicle, a Commer van, ‘adapted’ for human habitation, and therefore under the control of the 1960 Act, but on land for which there was no planning permission for use for caravans. . .
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: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.431887

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another, ex parte Next Generation Ltd: QBD 25 Nov 1999

An inspector’s decision against the grant of permission to build upon a school site properly followed the unitary development plan, and the effect which the development might have in reducing recreational facilities for local children was properly within the knowledge of the inspector. Such decisions were to be read as if by an intelligent and informed reader, and minor discrepancies in the wording were not to affect the decision.

Citations:

Gazette 25-Nov-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88622

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions, ex parte Rochford District Council: QBD 31 May 2000

A council had failed to fulfil its obligation to update and republish its local plan. The applicant had sought permission to develop a block of flats, but the council failed to determine the application. He appealed to the inspector who also awarded him a contribution to his costs on the basis that there was no proper reason for state of the council’s plan, and because of an error in the application of a policy. On appeal it as held that though the faults pre-dated the application, that was clearly provided for in Circular 8/93

Citations:

Times 31-May-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Administrative

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88625

Buick, Re Judicial Review: CANI 6 Jul 2018

Held: the relevant department did not have the power to make the decision to grant planning permission for a major waste incinerator in the absence of a minister.

Judges:

Morgan LCJ, Stephens LJ and Treacy LJ

Citations:

[2018] NICA 26

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Appeal from – Buick, Re Judicial Review QBNI 14-May-2018
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Northern Ireland of devolution issues, Reference by the Attorney General for (Northern Ireland) SC 14-Jan-2019
Five questions referred by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.
Held: The matter was adjourned: ‘it is desirable that legal questions be determined against the background of a clear factual matrix, rather than as theoretical or academic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.625561

Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another v Wyatt Brothers (Oxford) Ltd: CA 26 Oct 2001

The applicants were granted permission to construct a golf course and other facilities. They were then served with enforcement notices requiring them to remove waste materials deposited on the site. They appealed contending that the notices went beyond that required to comply with the planning permission.
Held: It was proper for the notices to require the land to be re-instated. Where a party chose not to pursue his appeal under 172(2)(a), he could not introduce general planning considerations as an objection. The power for an inspector to amend a notice was wide, but remained in the nature of a slip rule, and he could not use it substantially to re-write the notices.

Judges:

Kennedy, Mummery, Sedley LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 08-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1560

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 172(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166841

Porter, Searle and Others, Berry and Harty v South Buckinghamshire District Council, Chichester District Council, Wrexham County Borough Council, Hertsmere Borough Councilt: CA 12 Oct 2001

Local authorities had obtained injunctions preventing the defendants from taking up occupation, where they had acquired land with a view to living on the plots in mobile homes, but where planning permission had been refused. The various defendants appealed on the basis that the authorities had failed to make proper allowance for their human rights.
Held: Some of the appeals succeeded, because the planning authority had to consider the defendants human rights before acting, and they had not done so. They had to be satisfied that the legitimate aim of protecting the environment outweighed the gypsies’ right to respect for private and family life.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Peter Gibson And Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

Gazette 29-Nov-2001, Times 09-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1549, [2002] 1 WLR 1359

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 6(1), Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B

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? . .

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 . .
Cited – North West Estates Plc v Buckinghamshire County Council CA 22-May-2003
There had been many attempts to enforce and resist enforcement of a planning notice.
Held: The landowner was not entitled now to challenge the application for injunctive relief, where he had not appealed the validity of the enforcement notice. . .
Appeal from – 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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166647

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 notice were upheld by the inspector.
Held: The needs of gypsies for accommodation, and the refusal of permission to locate caravans on land purchased by them for this purpose, was not a sufficient infringement of their right to family life to outweigh the needs of society as reflected in the planning laws. The caravans were occupied as an integral part of their ethnic identity, but the planning laws required a large margin of appreciation to be afforded. to a national government. The interference was proportionate. ‘It is important to recall that Article 8 does not in terms give a right to be provided with a home. Nor does any of the jurisprudence acknowledge such a right. While it is clearly desirable that every human being has a place where he or she can live in dignity and which he or she can call home, there are unfortunately in the Contracting States many persons who have no home. Whether the State provides funds to enable everyone to have a home is a matter for political not judicial decision.’
‘When considering whether a requirement that the individual leave his or her home is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, it is highly relevant whether or not the home was established unlawfully. If the home was lawfully established this factor would self evidently be something which would weigh against the legitimacy of requiring the individual to move. Conversely, if the establishment of a home in a particular place was unlawful, the position of the individual objecting to an order to move is less strong. The court will be slow to grant protection to those who, in conscious defiance of the prohibitions of the law, establish a home on an environmentally protected site. For the court to do otherwise would be to encourage illegal action to the detriment of the protection of the environmental rights of other people in the community.’

Citations:

Times 30-Jan-2001, 27238/95, (2001) 33 EHRR 18, [2001] ECHR 43, (2001) 33 EHRR 479, (2001) 33 EHRR 399

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 8

Cited by:

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 – 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 . .
Cited – Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 17-Jun-2003
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
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 – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – South Bucks District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Linda Porter CA 19-May-2003
The applicant, a gipsy had occupied land she had bought. Her occupation was in breach of planning control. The inspector found exceptional cirumstances for allowing her to continue to live there. The authority appealed.
Held: The inspector had . .
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 – 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 – 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 – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
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 . .
Cited – Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School HL 22-Mar-2006
The claimant had been accused with others of arson to school property. He was suspended for the maximum forty five day period. The school then invited the family to discuss arrangements to return to the school, but the family did not attend. After . .
Cited – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Cited – Lee v Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council CA 16-Jul-2008
The applicant, a gypsy had been living for some years on an illegal site with her children. The council closed the site down and she sought assistance as a homeless person. The council accepted her priority need, but she refused the property offered . .
Cited – Goodwin v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jul-2002
The claimant was a post operative male to female trans-sexual. She claimed that her human rights were infringed when she was still treated as a man for National Insurance contributions purposes, where she continued to make payments after the age at . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166019

Buckley v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Sep 1996

The Commission had concluded, by a narrow majority, that the measures taken by the respondent in refusing planning permission and enforcing planning orders were excessive and disproportionate, even allowing a margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities. The Commission found that the interests of the applicant outweighed the general interest. The Court, also by a majority, took the opposite view, concluding that the responsible planning authorities had arrived at their decision after weighing in the balance the various competing interests at issue; that it was not for the Court to sit in appeal on the merits of that decision; that the reasons relied on by the planning authorities were relevant and sufficient; and that the means employed to achieve the legitimate aims pursued could not be regarded as disproportionate. A denial of permission for a gypsy to live on his own land was not a breach of his human rights. ”Home’ is an autonomous concept which does not depend on classification under domestic law. Whether or not a particular habitation constitutes a ‘home’ which attracts the protection of Article 8(1) will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links. The factor of ‘unlawfulness’ is relevant rather to considerations under paragraph 2 of that provision of ‘in accordance with law’ and to the balancing exercise undertaken between the interests of the community and those of the individual in assessing the necessity of any interference’.
Hudoc No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 14+8

Citations:

Times 09-Oct-1996, 20348/92, 23/1995/529/615, [1996] ECHR 39, (1996) 23 EHRR 101, [1996] ECHR 39

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 14

Cited by:

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 – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: 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 – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – London Borough of Hounslow v Powell, Leeds City Council v Hall etc SC 23-Feb-2011
In each case the tenant occupied the property as his home, but was not a secure tenant of the local authority. The Court was asked whether, in granting a possession order in such a case, the court was obliged to consider the proportionality of the . .
Cited – Nicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) SC 25-Jun-2014
Criminality of Assisting Suicide not Infringing
The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165449

Bryan v The United Kingdom: ECHR 22 Nov 1995

Bryan was a farmer at Warrington in Cheshire. He built two brick buildings on land in a conservation area without planning permission and the planning authority served an enforcement notice for their demolition. He appealed on grounds (a) (that planning permission should be granted), (b) (that there had been no breach of planning control) and two other grounds. The Secretary of State appointed an inspector who rejected the appeal on ground (a) because the buildings did not enhance or preserve the appearance of the conservation area. On ground (b), Mr Bryan contended that the buildings were ‘designed for the purpose of agriculture’ and that planning permission for them was deemed to have been granted. The applicant was served with an enforcement notice requiring him to demolish the buildings. He complained that the inspector’s decision did not satisfy article 6(1). The court and the Commission described the role of the inspector and the procedures to be followed under the Town and Country Planning Act including both his duty under the Framework Directive of the Secretary of State to exercise independent judgment and not to be or to be seen to be subject to any improper influence and to act fairly but at the same time to have regard to the policies promulgated by the Secretary of State on matters of planning. The Commission accepted that there had been a fair hearing before the inspector. Because however the inspector’s appointment to hear the appeal could be revoked in a situation where the executive’s own policies may be in issue, the inspector did not satisfy the requirements of article 6 that there must be an independent and impartial tribunal.
Held: The inspector’s hearing had been fair, given the national court’s powers of review.
UK Planning appeal procedures were not in breach of the human rights convention. If, at the end of whatever is the overall process in question, there is a fully Article 6 compliant court or tribunal to give fair consideration to the case, Article 6 is not engaged at the earlier stage(s). The court noted, however, that an appeal to the High Court was only on points of law and therefore: ‘not capable of embracing all aspects of the inspector’s decision. . . In particular, as is not infrequently the case in relation to administrative law appeals in the Council of Europe member states, there was no rehearing as such of the original complaints submitted to the inspector; the High Court could not substitute its own decision on the merits for that of the inspector; and its jurisdiction over the facts was limited.’

Judges:

Ryssdal, P

Citations:

Times 08-Dec-1995, 19178/91, 44/1994/491/573, [1995] ECHR 50, [1996] 28 EG 137, [1996] 2 EGLR 123, [1996] 1 PLR 47, (1996) 21 EHRR 342

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Cionvention on Human Rights 6

Cited by:

Cited – Clark (Procurator Fiscal, Kirkcaldy) v Kelly PC 11-Feb-2003
PC (The High Court of Justiciary) The minuter challenged the role of the legal adviser to the district courts in Scotland, and as to his independence.
Held: The legal adviser was not subject to the same . .
Cited – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – Sadler v The General Medical Council PC 15-Jul-2003
(The Committee on Professional Performance of the GMC) The distinction drawn in Krippendorf between a practitioner’s current competence and past performance was not to be taken too far. The purpose of the assessment was not to punish the . .
Cited – MB, Re, Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB Admn 12-Apr-2006
The applicant challenged the terms of a non-derogating control order. It was anticipated that unless prevented, he would fight against UK forces in Iraq.
Held: The section allowed the Secretary of State to impose any necessary conditions, but . .
Cited – Ali v Birmingham City Council CA 7-Nov-2008
The Council said that it had discharged its duty to house the claimants after they had refused an offer of accommodation, and that decision had been reviewed. The claimant denied receiving a notice under the procedure. The court was asked whether . .
Cited – Barclay and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and others CA 2-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his challenge to the new constitutional law for Sark, and sought a declaration of incompatibility under the 1998 Act. He said that by restricting the people who could stand for election, a free democracy had . .
Cited – Wright and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants had been provisionally listed as ‘people considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults’ which meant that they could no longer work, but they said they were given no effective and speedy opportunity to object to the listing. . .
Cited – Heald and Others v London Borough of Brent CA 20-Aug-2009
The court considered whether it was lawful for a local authority to outsource the decision making on homelessness reviews. The appellants said that it could not be contracted out, and that the agent employed lacked the necessary independence and was . .
Cited – G, Regina (on The Application of) v X School and Others CA 20-Jan-2010
The claimant was a teaching assistant. A complaint had been made that he had kissed a boy having work experience at the school, but it had been decided that no criminal prosecution would follow. He sought judicial review of the school’s decision to . .
Cited – Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council SC 17-Feb-2010
The appellant asked whether the statutory review of a housing authority’s decision on whether he was intentionally homeless was a determination of a civil right, and if so whether the review was of the appropriate standard. The claimant said that . .
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 – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Cited – Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government CA 6-Feb-2013
The Council sought permission to appeal against the setting aside of two enforcement notices, leave having been refused by the Administrative court. The court now considered whether it had jusridiction, and whether the rule in Lane v Esdaile was to . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165392

Fredin v Sweden: ECHR 18 Feb 1991

A gravel pit licence was revoked without compensation pursuant to legislation brought in after the owner had acquired the pit but before it had begun to exploit it. The actual revocation took place after the pit had been exploited for a number of years, but the owner had known that its future was uncertain because of the possibility of revocation. It contended that it should have had more time in which to close down and that it had made investments which should have been allowed to be more fully exploited.
Held: The time given was reasonable. Disputes under planning rules could affect civil rights to build on the applicant’s land. Signatory states enjoy a wide ‘margin of appreciation’ in this area relating to the control of the use of land in the public interest for environmental reasons, and that the controls prescribed or interferences involved must be without any reasonable foundation if the court is to regard them as disproportionate.

Citations:

[1991] 13 EHRR 784, 12033/86, [1991] ECHR 2

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights P-1 A-1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Fisher and Another v English Nature Admn 4-Jul-2003
The claimants were trustees of land. The Respondent had notified the Secretary of State that they considered that part of the land satisfied the criteria to be certifed as being of special scientific interest. They now intended to confirm the . .
Cited – Trailer and Marina (Leven) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, English Nature QBD 6-Feb-2004
The claimant owned land which contained a canal. After disuse it had become subject an order declaring it a site of special scientific intrest. The owner complained that this removed his right to develop uses of the land and infringed his human . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Environment, Planning

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165084

Uprichard and others v Fife Council and St Andrews Bay Developments Ltd for Judicial Review &C: SCS 31 Mar 2000

Six petitioners sought to challenge the grant of planning permission by the responders allowing a commercial hotel development in St Andrews, which, they said, would adversely affect the landscape and otherwise.

Judges:

Lord Bonomy

Citations:

[2000] ScotCS 90, [2001] Env LR 122, 2000 SCLR 949

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Scotland, Planning

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.163830

Moore and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 21 Jan 2015

The Court was required to consider the approach of the Defendant Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to the consideration and determination of planning appeals which relate to the provision of pitches for use by travellers within the Green Belt. Such pitches are used to station caravans in which travellers live.

Judges:

Gilbart J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 44 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.542595

XPL Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Harlow Council: Admn 20 Nov 2014

The Claimant, XPL Limited, is a bus and coach company and seeks judicial review against Harlow Council, the local planning authority for their area, in order to challenge the Council’s decision to serve a breach of condition notice on the Claimant alleging a failure to comply with condition 4 of the planning permission granted by the Council for the use of land

Judges:

Rhodri Price Lewis QC HHJ

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3860 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.542570

Moore and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 21 Jan 2015

‘In this case the Court is required to consider the approach of the Defendant Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (‘SSCLG’) to the consideration and determination of planning appeals which relate to the provision of pitches for use by travellers within the Green Belt. Such pitches are used to station caravans in which travellers live. ‘

Judges:

Gilbart J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 44 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equality Act 2010, European Convention on Human Rights 6 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.541585

Jarmain v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions Welwyn Hatfield District Council: QBD 12 Mar 1999

Where an authority sought to enforce a planning notice a second time, against substantially the same structure, there was no need for the property to be described identically in each notice, in order for the Act’s provisions to be brought into effect.

Citations:

Gazette 14-Apr-1999, Times 13-Apr-1999, Gazette 24-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 225

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Planning and Compensation Act 1991 171B(4)(b) 172

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Roger Raymond Jarmain v Secretary of State for Environment and Another CA 12-Apr-2000
Brooke LJ contrasted a ‘purist’ approach and a ‘pragmatic’ approach to questions of planning enforcement and preferred the pragmatic approach: ‘Anyone who had any experience of the operation of the former law relating to the enforcement of planning . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.85501

Eastleigh Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 23 Oct 2014

A case about the calculation of the five-year housing land supply. In order to boost the supply of housing and to ensure an output of continuous supply of housing, the National Planning Policy Framework contains a requirement for a five-year housing land supply as a litmus test as to whether or not that policy objective has been achieved.

Judges:

Dove J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 4225 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.541588

Miller-Mead v Minister for Housing and Local Government and Another: CA 1963

The court considered the power of the Secretary of state to vary or amend an enforcement notice under the Act.
Held: He could amend a notice which was otherwise invalid but not one which was upon its face a nullity. Lord Denning MR said: ‘He can correct errors so long as having regard to the merits of the case the correction can be made without injustice.’
Upjohn LJ drew the distinction between planning enforcement notices which were a nullity and those which were invalid. The distinction was to be drawn by reference to whether or not the correction did indeed go to a matter of substance and cause, or potentially cause, injustice: ‘Now, what happens if a notice does not comply exactly with those sections? As a matter of common sense, if it does not specify the steps to be taken to remedy the alleged breach of planning permission or the alleged failure to comply with the conditions with proper and sufficient particularity, the notice will not be operative. So, too, if subsection (3) is not complied with. Now, I think, is the time to draw the distinction between invalidity and nullity. For example, supposing development without permission is alleged and it is found that no permission is required or that, contrary to the allegation in the notice, it is established that in fact the conditions in the planning permission have been complied with, then the notice may be quashed under section 23(4)(a). The notice is invalid: it is not a nullity because on the face of it it appears to be good and it is only on proof of facts aliunde that the notice is shown to be bad: the notice is invalid and, therefore, it may be quashed. But supposing the notice on the face of it fails to specify some period required by subsection (2) or (3). On the face of it the notice does not comply with the section; it is a nullity and is so much waste paper. No power was given to the justices to quash in such circumstances, for it was quite unnecessary. The notice on its face is bad. Supposing then upon its true construction the notice was hopelessly ambiguous and uncertain, so that the owner or occupier could not tell in what respect it was alleged that he had developed the land without permission or in what respect it was alleged that the failed to comply with a condition or, again, that he could not tell with reasonable certainty what steps he had to take to remedy the alleged breaches. The notice would be bad on its face and a nullity, the justices had no jurisdiction to quash it, for it was unnecessary to give them that power, but this court could, upon application to it, declare that the notice was a nullity. That to my mind is the distinction between invalidity and nullity.’

Judges:

Upjohn LJ, Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1963] 2 QB 196

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 169

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Simms v Secretary of State for Environment, Broxtowe Borough Council Admn 18-Mar-1997
The applicants appealed an enforcement notice, with regard to a change of use, to use land for a multiplicity of businesses. The inspector had suggested he would correct by amendment an error in the notice. The section provided that an amendment . .
Cited – BT Fleet Ltd v McKenna Admn 17-Mar-2005
The company appealed a notice requiring them to avoid th eneed for its employees to carry out manual handling operations.
Held: The notice was inadequate, and the magistrates had been wrong to try to improve it by adding to it. The inspector . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.180934

London Borough of Sutton v Bolton and Another: ChD 3 Feb 1993

Land had been owned by the authority and used as a children’s home. After a boundary change taking the land outside its area, it sought to sell the land for development. The neighbours, claiming the benefit of a restrictive covenant allowing only one house on the land, objected. Using the 1972 Act, the authority purported to override the covenant by appropriating the property to planning purposes. They now sought validation of that appropriation.
Held: The appopriation was unsuccessful. The section allowed no greater power than the power to acquire land for any particular purpose, and it could not have been acquired for that purpose, since the land was no longer within its district. The authority had to show the appropriation was for a purpose set out in the section, which did not include the satisfaction of the planning purposes of a different authority.

Judges:

Paul Baker QC J

Citations:

[1993] 68 P and CR 166, [1993] 91 LGR 566, [1993] 2 EGLR 181, [1993] 33 EG 91

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 122, Town and Country Planning Act 1971 127, Town and Country Planning Act 1990 237 246

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Land

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.261592

Berkeley v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames: CA 29 Jun 2001

There is no obligation to refer every application to the Secretary of State where an objector raised a plausible argument that an environmental impact assessment might be needed. In this case the application did not fall within Schedule I, and nor was it in a sensitive area, and nor was it over 0.5 hectares, and it was not open to the inspector to conclude that it might require an assessment. Regulation 9(2) did not require a reference whenever a plausible argument was raised that an assessment might be required. The 1999 Regulations did comply with the appropriate European Directives and jurisprudence.
courtcommentary.com Desiderata in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 for separating major impact applications (‘EIA applications’) from those giving rise only to a lesser impact

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Kay

Citations:

Gazette 26-Jul-2001, Times 19-Oct-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1012

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288, Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 293) 9(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Leave Appelication – Robert and Sonia Burkett, Application for Permission To Apply for Judicial Review CA 13-Dec-2000
. .

Cited by:

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 . .
Appeal heard – Robert and Sonia Burkett, Application for Permission To Apply for Judicial Review CA 13-Dec-2000
. .
Cited – Richardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, Planning

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160057

Taylor and Sons (Farms) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Three Rivers District Council: CA 31 Jul 2001

Over a long period of time the applicants had deposited large quantities of waste on their land to hard standings and tracks. They were served with enforcement notices alleging a change from agricultural use, to agricultural use with waste deposit, and unauthorised engineering and other operations in creating a hard standing, or that it was permitted development. They appealed the notices saying that there had been no engineering operations, saying ‘in order to discover whether some development is permitted by that part one should first examine whether the development is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. ‘ But that was not the procedure followed. The inspector found that they had been used for feeding sheep, and she held this was ‘accommodating’ them.
Held: The word ‘accomodation’ came from the Latin ‘accommodatus’ which meant suitable, and that could apply to the hard standing, and was not restricted as the judge had found: ‘So one must look to the context.’ The claimant might have sought to specify the extent of use for agricultural purposes as a fall-back position, but had not done so. The inspector had not addressed in her decision the extent to which the hard standing was on the former site of a track and was an improvement. The inspectors failure to suggest this was not an error in law, and it was not reasonable to return the matter to the inspector. The court discouraged site inspections: ‘The function of a site visit is to enable an inspector to make a judgment about submissions which have been made rather than to explore new possibilities. ‘ The enforcement notice stood as varied by the inspector.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance, Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1254, Gazette 04-Oct-2001, Times 16-Oct-2001, [2002] PLCR 11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174, General Permitted Development Order 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Taylor v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another QBD 30-Jan-2001
An area with a hard surface which was used as a hard standing for feeding sheep, and which was formed by deposit of builder’s rubble was not a habitation and therefore was not used for the accommodation of sheep. Since the landowner was entitled to . .
Cited – Cowen v Secretary of State for Environment Peak District National Park Authority CA 26-May-1999
A land-owner laid a tarmac surface on a path within the National Park. This was held to be an improvement required for the right of way. The fact that works constituted an alteration did not avoid the protection given as an improvement. . .

Cited by:

Explained – Exmouth Marina Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 3-Jun-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159893

Regina v Wicks: HL 21 May 1997

Criminal proceedings, forming part of the general scheme of enforcement of planning control contained in Part VII of the Act, had been taken.
Held: The validity of a planning enforcement notice must be challenged in civil proceedings, not during a defence on enforcement. In looking at Part VII of the Act, the scheme of enforcement of planning control which it exhibits and the history of its provisions, the conclusion is that ‘enforcement notice’ means a notice issued by the planning authority which is formally valid and has not been quashed. The duty of the landowner is clear: if the enforcement notice has not been quashed, he must obey it. ‘the distinction between substantive and procedural invalidity appears to cut across the distinction between grounds of invalidity which require no extrinsic evidence and those which do.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

Times 26-May-1997, Gazette 17-Sep-1997, [1997] UKHL 21, [1998] AC 92, [1997] 2 All ER 801, [1997] 2 WLR 876

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Part IV

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Wicks CACD 19-Apr-1995
A defendant facing a charge of not complying with an enforcement notice may not challenge the validity of the notice upon which the enforcement proceedings are based by asserting it to be unreasonable. . .
Doubted – Bugg v Director of Public Prosecutions; Director of Public Prosecutions v Percy QBD 1993
The defendants appealed against convictions for having entered military bases contrary to various bye-laws. They challenged the validity of the bye-laws.
Held: The validity of a bye-law could be challenged in criminal proceedings, but where . .

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 . .
Appealed to – Regina v Wicks CACD 19-Apr-1995
A defendant facing a charge of not complying with an enforcement notice may not challenge the validity of the notice upon which the enforcement proceedings are based by asserting it to be unreasonable. . .
Cited – Boddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Planning

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158896

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

Judges:

Richards J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2566 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Entertainu Ltd v First Secretary of State and another Admn 6-May-2003
The claimant operated an hostess bar in Chinatown. The local authority served an enforcement notice, and the applicant applied for planning permission. The authority rejected the application on the basis that that particular bar would encourage . .

Cited by:

See Also – Entertainu Ltd v First Secretary of State and another Admn 6-May-2003
The claimant operated an hostess bar in Chinatown. The local authority served an enforcement notice, and the applicant applied for planning permission. The authority rejected the application on the basis that that particular bar would encourage . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.219534

City Logistics Ltd v Northamptonshire County Fire Officer: CA 25 Jul 2001

Fire officers required the installation of an expensive sprinkler system in premises. The landowner objected, and appealed against confirmation of the fire officers actions. The court held that the purpose of the regulations was to protect people, not property. Conditions attached to a certificate which were directed not to securing escape of those in the building were ultra vires. Other improper purposes would the protection of the building and its contents, of fire officers attending a blaze, and those nearby the building.

Judges:

Kennedy, Chadwick, Rix LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 09-Aug-2001, Gazette 13-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1216

Links:

Bailii, Times

Statutes:

Fire Precautions Act 1971 5(3) 5(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147636

Copas and Another v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead: CA 7 Feb 2001

Land had first been excluded from the green belt, but then the plan had been revised. The revision was challenged, saying that a revision required exceptional circumstances making a revision necessary.
Held: there are not two tests, exceptional circumstances and necessity, but one composite test. The revision was set aside.

Judges:

The Master Of The Rolls Lord Justice Simon Brown And Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 180

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 66

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Carpets of Worth Limited v Wire Forest District Council 1991
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147426

Mohammed Aslam v South Bedfordshire District Council: CA 21 Dec 2000

The claimant appealed an award of the Lands Tribunal of compensation for an order discontinuing his use as a slaughterhouse of premises of which he held a long lease. The tribunal had applied a discount for wastage on sheep carcasses of 25%, but had had no evidence to support their conclusion, and the figure proposed had allowed for that factor. A reduced allowance for losses from sale of other parts of sheep could not be supported by the evidence, and was increased, and the tribunal should have awarded interest from the date of the discontinuance order.

Citations:

Times 18-Jan-2001, Gazette 11-Jan-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 355

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 102, Planning and Compensation Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Knibb and another v National Coal Board CA 1987
The court considered whether the Lands Tribunal had power to award interest on an award made under a statutory power.
Held: The Lands Tribunal had power to award interest on the amount of compensation in respect of the period from the date on . .
Cited – Director of Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd PC 20-Feb-1995
Compensation is payable for losses properly anticipating resumption of possession of the land. The principle of equivalence gives rise to the statutory right to interest under section 11(1). The council explained the conceptual foundation of the . .
Cited – Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co HL 1903
A coalmine owner claimed statutory compensation against a water undertaking which had, under its statutory authority, prevented him mining his coal over a period during which the price of coal had risen. The House was asked whether the coal should . .
Cited – President of India v La Pintada Compagnia Navigacia SA (‘La Pintada’) HL 1985
The house decided against altering the rule in Page -v- Newman. ‘The common law does not award general damages for delay in payment of a debt beyond the date when it is contractually due’ The power given to the court under s 35A is discretionary. It . .
Cited – Wright v British Railways Board HL 1983
An award of interest at a conventional rate includes an element in respect of the ‘real’ rate of return which an investor could expect to receive on a risk-free investment and an element to allow for inflation. Lord Diplock said: ‘that element of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Planning

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147388

Prashar v Secretary of State For Environment, Transport and Regions: CA 2 Feb 2001

The court had before it three applications for leave to appeal. Each raised the problem of whether, where a High Court judge has considered an application for permission to appeal under section 289 of the 1990 Act, an appeal can be lodged against the refusal of that judge to grant such permission.

Judges:

Kay LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1231, [2001] 3 PLR 116

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 289

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government CA 6-Feb-2013
The Council sought permission to appeal against the setting aside of two enforcement notices, leave having been refused by the Administrative court. The court now considered whether it had jusridiction, and whether the rule in Lane v Esdaile was to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Planning

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147423

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council: CA 14 Dec 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 324

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council Admn 19-Apr-2000
. .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council Admn 19-Apr-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Road Traffic

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147357

Roger Raymond Jarmain v Secretary of State for Environment and Another: CA 12 Apr 2000

Brooke LJ contrasted a ‘purist’ approach and a ‘pragmatic’ approach to questions of planning enforcement and preferred the pragmatic approach: ‘Anyone who had any experience of the operation of the former law relating to the enforcement of planning control knows that it was disfigured by time-consuming litigation over technicalities, raised by determined litigants who sought to evade the effects of enforcement action taken against them by local planning authorities on behalf of their local communities. From time to time, there were judicial explosions on the topic.’ and
‘I am quite satisfied that one of parliament’s main purposes in 1991, in overhauling Part II of the 1990 Act, was to spare those like Mr Eyre the pain of returning to those arid technicalities.’

Judges:

Brooke LJ

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 126, [2000] 2 PLR 126

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Jarmain v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions Welwyn Hatfield District Council QBD 12-Mar-1999
Where an authority sought to enforce a planning notice a second time, against substantially the same structure, there was no need for the property to be described identically in each notice, in order for the Act’s provisions to be brought into . .

Cited by:

Cited – Fowles v Heathrow Airport Ltd ChD 15-Feb-2008
The landlord had opposed the tenant’s application to renew his tenancy, and the tenant also claimed title to additional land by adverse possession. The tenant asserted various business uses, some of which the landlord denied. The landlord went into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147159

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 clearly include stable houses 200 meters from the main house. Accordingly those buildings were included within the property subject to the listed buildings order. The general legislative purpose of both regimes is the protection of the national heritage, and the particular purpose of the extending provisions is to ensure that not only the heritage property itself, but also its fixtures and its environment, are protected.

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-2000, Gazette 09-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 60, [2001] QB 59, [2000] 2 PLR 84

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Ancient Monuments and Archeological Areas Act 1979 61(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – Skerritts of Nottingham Limited v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions, Harrow London Borough Council Admn 22-Mar-1999
The curtilage of a building is a small area around it. An assessment of whether a separate structure was within the curtilage which did not consider the distance between the various buildings must be incorrect in that it had omitted an essential . .
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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Zielinski Baker and Partners Limited HL 26-Feb-2004
The commissioners sought to charge to VAT charges for works which had been carried out to a building within the curtilage of a listed building. The taxpayer sought zero-rating.
Held: The outbuilding to which alterations were made must have . .
Cited – Lowe v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 6-Feb-2003
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Planning

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147093

Regina v Bath and North East Somerset District Council: CA 26 May 1999

The Court was asked whether the respondent has power to hear appeals sought to be made to him by an applicant under the planning act and the listed buildings act when the appellants, as local planning authority, have determined that the applications to them, which provide the basis for the right of appeal, are invalid.

Judges:

Roch, Otton, Pill LJJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1493, [1999] 1 WLR 1759

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146408

Harlow District Council and Another v Stokes and Others: QBD 3 Mar 2015

Application for interim injunction to prevent traveller families occupying certain lands.

Judges:

Patterson DBE J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 953 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B, Local Government Act 1972 222, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Planning

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.545603

Mid-Sussex District Council v William Charles Boyle: QBD 20 Jul 2001

The authority sought an injunction to restrain a breach of planning control by the defendant. Earlier temporary permissions for single caravans had expired, and enforcement notices issued. The defendant had failed to remove multiple vehicles.
Held: The area was designated one of outstanding natural beauty, and that had to be allowed for by the authority. The defendant having not taken the routes available to him to challenge the refusals of permissions, the injunction was the proper route for the local authority, and the injunction was granted.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC QB 382

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Croyden London Borough Council v Gladden and Others CA 23-Feb-1994
The court could properly grant an interlocutory injunction ordering the removal of a plane (a replica Spitfire) from a roof in breach of planning controls under the Act. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.159933

Regina v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods: CA 7 Feb 1997

The claimant renewed his application for leave to appeal against rejection of his challenge to the grant of planning permission for a substantial redevelopment of land near his home.
Held: Brooke LJ considered the interpretation of planning polcy documents saying: ‘If there is a dispute about the meaning of the words included in a policy document which a planning authority is bound to take into account, it is of course for the court to determine as a matter of law what the words are capable of meaning. If the decision maker attaches a meaning to the words they are not properly capable of bearing, then it will have made an error of law, and it will have failed properly to understand the policy.’

Judges:

Brooke, Butler-Sloss LJJ, Sir John Balcombe

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 971, [1997] JPL 958, [1998] Env LR 277

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

Cited – Arthur Sidney Petter; Monica Mary Williams v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Chichester District Council Admn 15-May-1998
The applicants challenged refusal to renew their three year temporary permission to occupy a mobile home on their land. . .
Cited – Petter and Harris v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Chichester District Council CA 15-Mar-1999
. .
Cited – Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 22-Feb-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal to make an ex gratia payment for his imprisonment whilst successfully resisting extradition proceedings. Terrorist connections had been suggested, but the judge made an explicit finding that at no . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council SC 21-Mar-2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not . .
Cited – Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd Admn 22-Aug-2013
The campaign company sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent granting permission to develop nearby land as a golf course.
Held: The application succeeded. The Secretary of State in preserving the effect of certain policies had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.141367

Newark and Sherwood District Council v The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Others: QBD 19 Jul 2018

statutory review pursuant to s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of the Decision Letter dated 23 January 2018 of the first defendant Secretary of State’s Inspector, Mr Brendan Lyons. By that decision he allowed the appeal of the second and third defendants, Dr and Mrs Parsons, against the claimant council’s refusal of the grant of planning permission for a development of land to the south of Bilsthorpe Road, Eakring, Nottinghamshire.

Judges:

Soole J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC B16 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.625521

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 for withdrawing structure and unitary development plans, and none for this procedure, but there was no discernible reason for making such a difference, and a power was inferred.

Citations:

Gazette 06-Sep-2001, Times 18-Sep-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 565, [2001] 1 WLR 2393

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wealden District Council v Martin Grant Homes Ltd and Another CA 31-Oct-2005
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140352