Category: Planning

Baker v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions: Admn 26 Jan 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 585

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 1982
The Secretary of State could find that a building built under a permission for a weekend and holiday chalet, but to be used only in summer, was a dwelling house. The distinctive characteristic of a dwellinghouse is its ability to afford to those who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140265

Regina v Bedfordshire County Council ex parte Henlow Grange Health Farm Ltd: Admn 13 Mar 2001

The applicant owned a health farm. Permission was sought to develop adjoining land, and the applicant objected unsuccessfully, but the Secretary of State then called in the decision. In the meantime, the applicant sought judicial review of the council’s decision, saying that the council had given weight to an irrelevant matter. The application failed. The planning system provided a comprehensive code for such challenges, and it should be used. Judicial review would exclude the public from involvement. The issues were as to matters of fact which were appropriate for assessment within the system.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Mar-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 179

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 77

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140288

Wiggins v Secretary of State for The Environment, Transport and The Regions: Admn 21 Dec 2000

The claimant sought to appeal an enforcement notice. The land had been used for crushing etc concrete. The council had said it was an unlicensed waste management facility. A temporary permission had been granted subject to an obligation under s106.
Held: Permission was obtained for a filetring media plant, but under the subsequent Use Classes Order, both the filtering media and concrete crushing uses fell within Class B2 and so no planning permission was now required for the change from one to the other. The order was not retrospective, but the claimant asserted established use. The rule in Newbury only applied to preserve an existing use where the new planning permission was unnnecessary to the cuttent use. That did not apply here and the appeal was dismissed.

Judges:

The Hon. Mr Justice Collins

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 436

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town an Country Planning Act 1990 106

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1981
The grant of a temporary planning permission did not operate to cancel an existing established use. A planning condition requiring removal of hangars was invalid because it did not fairly or reasonably relate to the permitted development. The grant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140253

Buckinghamshire County Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Brown: Admn 31 Aug 2000

The principal shareholder and managing director of a company which was the sole tenant of a building was competent to object to a planning enforcement notice. The corporate veil was not to be set aside except in special circumstances, and in this case the company was no mere sham or front. However, the managing director could be said in law to be occupying part of the building as licensee, and so achieved a sufficient standing through that path.

Judges:

Mr Robin Purchas Q.C

Citations:

Times 13-Oct-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 386, [2001] 1 PLR 38

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174

Citing:

See also – 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 by:

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

Planning, Company

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140201

Beyers v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Uttlesford District Council: Admn 31 Aug 2000

The appellant challenged refusal of leave to fell a tree protected by a tree preservation order. The tree was old and large, and its roots had begun to undermine the claimant’s buildings. The original consent to a reduction of the crown of the tree by 50% had not been accompanied by the proper certificate as to the tree’s amenity value, but one was served later. The claimant had since been advised that damage could only be avoided by it being felled. He sought compensation for the damage, and the authority replied that his claim was out of time.
Held: The Regulation required the authority’s decision to be certified. That required formal notification of the decision. The certification procedure could only take place at the time of the decision, and not by a certificate issued separately. The first respondent’s decision upholding the validity of the certificate was incorrectly based and ineffective.

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 387

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1971, Town and County Planning (Tree Preservation Order) Regulations 1969

Citing:

Cited – Henriques v Swale Borough Council CA 7-Oct-1996
The appellant challenged refusal of the Lands Tribunal to authorise him to fell a tree protected under a Tree Preservation Order. He complained that the decision had not been certified properly by the authority as was required.
Held: ‘ The . .
Cited – Brayhead (Ascot) Ltd v Berkshire County Council CA 1964
Planning permission had been granted subject to conditions, but no reasons had been given for the imposition of those conditions. The Order required the local planning authority to state its reasons in writing if it decided to grant planning . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140202

Alan Frank Sage v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions and Maidstone Borough Council: Admn 11 Oct 2000

An enforcement notice was issued. The land-owner resisted, saying that the building had been substantially completed more than four years before.
Held: It was necessary only that the building works permitted by the permission should be complete, and not that the building should be complete in other ways so as to have made it habitable.

Judges:

Keene LJ

Citations:

Times 23-Oct-2001, [2000] EWHC Admin 394

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171B(1)

Planning

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140210

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council: Admn 19 Apr 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 336

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council CA 14-Dec-2000
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council CA 14-Dec-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Planning

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140151

Fernback; Berger; Jacobs; Strachan and Wong v London Borough of Harrow: Admn 11 Apr 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 278

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Regina (Fernback and Others) v Harrow London Borough Council QBD 15-May-2001
The local planning authority adopted a screening opinion that proposed development was not development requiring an EIA under the 1999 Regulations. About a year later it granted planning permission for the proposed development. Local residents . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140137

Regina v Vale of Glamorgan District Council ex parte David Adams: Admn 12 Apr 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 323

Links:

Bailii

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: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140138

Regina v Epping Forest District Council, ex parte Philcox (2): Admn 13 Apr 2000

Application for judicial review of the respondent’s decision to grant a certificate of lawful established use. The applicant submits that the respondent acted unlawfully because the person who made the successful application had been committing criminal offences under section 33(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Judges:

Hooper J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 324, [2000] EWHC Admin 325

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Epping Forest Borough Council ex parte Philcox Admn 29-Jan-1998
The claimant sought permission to bring a judicial review of the respondent’s decision to grant a certificate of lawful use. . .
See Also – Regina v Epping Forest District Council ex parte Philcox Admn 18-May-1999
Application seeking leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by Epping Forest District Council, dated 2nd July 1998, to issue a certificate of lawfulness of an existing use. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Epping Forest District Council v Philcox CA 13-Apr-2000
Where an activity had been continuing without planning permission for 10 years it was no obstacle to obtaining a certificate of lawful use that the activity had been illegal because it had been carried out without a waste management licence. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140139

Braithwaite and Another v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council: Admn 17 Mar 2000

The claimants owned land designated as green belt. They sought its exclusion from the green belt and designation for employment purposes. At the enquiry, the inspector agreed, and recommended accordingly. The council took the land from the green belt, but allocated it within the UDP as open space. They refused to re-open the enquiry.
Held: The decision was quashed. The designation as open space had not been considered at the enquiry, and the council had failed to consider properly the landowners representations.

Citations:

Gazette 30-Mar-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 306

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 287

Planning

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140120

Powys County Council v National Assembly for Wales, and Johnathan Hanson: Admn 30 Mar 2000

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 313

Links:

Bailii

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: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140127

Regina v Durham County Council ex parte Rodney Huddleston: Admn 17 Aug 1999

Variation of interim injunction to allow works preparatory to development pending appeal against refusal of planning permission.

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 794

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Durham County Council Sherburn Stone Company Limited Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions ex parte Rodney Huddleston CA 15-Feb-1999
. .
See Also – Regina v Durham County Council Sherburn Stone Company Limited ex parte Huddlestone Admn 28-Jul-1999
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Regina v Durham County Council Ex Parte Huddleston QBD 28-Jan-2000
A quarry owner had allowed his mineral extraction licence to lapse, and sought to renew the permission. The authority failed to issue a decision within the appropriate time period, and a deemed permission was granted. It was held however that where . .
See Also – Regina v Durham County Council and Others Ex Parte Huddleston CA 15-Mar-2000
A quarry owner had allowed his mineral extraction licence to lapse, and sought to renew the permission. The authority failed to issue a decision within the appropriate time period, and a deemed permission was granted. The UK system appeared not to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.140058

Alnwick District Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and others: Admn 4 Aug 1999

The Council had given planning consent for a superstore, not appreciating the proposed size, which would contravene national planning policy. In the face of the council’s objections, the Secretary of State revoked the permission. The substantial compensation would fall on the Council. The inspector described the decision as ‘grossly wrong’ and ‘seriously perverse’, and likely to cause ‘significant harm to Alnwick’s vitality and viability as a shopping centre’. He indicated that he regarded the issue of compensation as irrelevant. The Secretary of State adopted that reasoning.
The council sought to to quash that order, arguing that liability for compensation of this order would put the council in severe financial difficulties, and in particular risk a planned development of leisure facilities elsewhere. This argument was only developed fullay at Court. The Secretary of State submitted that compensation was irrelevant as a matter of law, but also that, even if it had been relevant, relief should be refused as a matter of discretion, because on the material before the Secretary of State there was no likelihood of it having led to a different decision.
Held: Richards J accepted the Secretary’s submissions.
On the first, Richards J said: ‘A decision maker will often be entitled, if not required, to take into account as a relevant or material consideration the financial consequences of his decision. Consideration of the effects of a decision on others is a normal aspect of the decision-making function and there is no difference of principle between financial effects and other effects. The observations of Nicholls LJ, in Vasiliou v Secretary of State for Transport [1991] 2 All ER 77 as to the relevance of the adverse effects of a ministerial order were directed to the specific context of an order extinguishing or expropriating an individual’s rights but are in my view capable of more general application. Nor is the point limited to the effects of a decision on others. It also applies to the financial consequences for the decision maker himself. Where decisions involve the expenditure of public funds, the decision maker will normally be entitled or required to take into account matters such as the availability of funds and competing demands on those funds.
All that, however, is at a level of generality. Whether a particular consideration is one that a decision maker is entitled or required to take into account in the exercise of a statutory power depends ultimately on the statute conferring that power. A statute may restrict the range of permissible considerations either expressly or by implication. Whether it does so is to be determined by reference to its provisions and to the statutory purpose.
In the exercise of their functions under sections 97 and 100 of the 1990 Act with regard to the revocation and modification of planning permissions, local planning authorities and the Secretary of State are required to have regard to ‘material considerations’ (see section 97(2)). What is capable of amounting to a material consideration for this purpose must in my view be the same as in relation to the initial determination of planning applications, i.e. the ‘material considerations’ referred to in sections 70(2) and 54A. Although the courts have adopted a flexible approach towards the concept, a consideration must in broad terms be a ‘planning’ consideration in order to be material for that purpose. Any consideration which relates to the use and development of land is capable of being a planning consideration (see Stringer v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1281, 1294).
It follows that financial consequences are capable of amounting to a material consideration in so far as they relate to the use and development of land. R v Westminster City Council, Ex p Monahan [1990] 1 QB 87 is an example. The need for a connection with the use and development of land was helpfully spelled out in the application of that decision in Northumberland County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1989) 59 P and CR 468.
It also follows, however, that in so far as financial consequences do not relate to the use and development of land, they are not capable of amounting to material considerations. In my view that is fatal to the general proposition for which [leading counsel on behalf of the council] contends, that the cost to the local authority may be taken into account irrespective of land-use consequences. I see no warrant for treating cost as a permissible consideration even where it is not a ‘material consideration’ within the meaning of the legislation. It is wholly consonant with the statutory purpose that decisions under sections 97 and 100 should be guided only by planning considerations. It cannot have been the legislative intention, in introducing provision for the payment of compensation, that the impact of such payment upon a local planning authority’s financial position should condition the exercise of the powers to revoke or modify planning permissions. Payment of compensation enters into the picture only after a decision to revoke or modify has been taken. Its purpose is simply to ensure that persons interested in the land are compensated for any loss they suffer by reason of the revocation or modification of the permission.’
Richards J also accepted as a general proposition that, where a decision involves the expenditure of public funds, the decision maker will normally be ‘entitled or required’ to take into account ‘matters such as the availability of funds and competing demands on those funds’.

Judges:

Richards J

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 782, (2000) 79 PandCR 130

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Vasiliou v Secretary of State for Transport CA 1991
When considering the revocation or modification of a planning consent, any impact on an interested party is a relevant consideration. A planning permission should not have been granted closing a public road without considering its adverse effect on . .
Cited – Northumberland County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment 1989
. .

Cited by:

Applied – Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council and Another Admn 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought to have development stopped on a site which it said was too near a site for the storage of liquid petroleum gas.
Held: Collins J allowed the claim and granted declaratory relief that Wolverhampton had failed to: (i) notify . .
Cited – The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council and Victoria Hall Ltd CA 30-Jul-2010
The Council had granted planning pemission for four blocks of student accomodation. The Executive objected that it had not dealt properly with the issue the proximity of a liquified petroleum gas storage depot.
Held: Though there had been some . .
Cited – The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council SC 18-Jul-2012
The Council had granted planning permission for four student housing units. The Executive complained that they were too near to a liquified gas storage depot. The Court was now asked whether the impact of any compensation which might be payable on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.140046

Regina v East Sussex County Council (ex parte Reprotech (Pebsham) Limited): Admn 30 Jul 1999

Where an application for an alteration in a planning permission would mean also that the original use for which permission had been granted would need alteration, a local authority was correct to treat the new use as if it had been a use ancillary to the original.

Citations:

Times 14-Sep-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 769

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 64

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd) v East Sussex County Council Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd v Same HL 28-Feb-2002
The respondent company had asserted that the local authority had made a determination of the issue of whether electricity could be generated on a waste treatment site without further planning permission. The council said that without a formal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.140033

Regina v Durham County Council Sherburn Stone Company Limited ex parte Huddlestone: Admn 28 Jul 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 745

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Durham County Council Sherburn Stone Company Limited Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions ex parte Rodney Huddleston CA 15-Feb-1999
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Regina v Durham County Council ex parte Rodney Huddleston Admn 17-Aug-1999
Variation of interim injunction to allow works preparatory to development pending appeal against refusal of planning permission. . .
See Also – Regina v Durham County Council Ex Parte Huddleston QBD 28-Jan-2000
A quarry owner had allowed his mineral extraction licence to lapse, and sought to renew the permission. The authority failed to issue a decision within the appropriate time period, and a deemed permission was granted. It was held however that where . .
See Also – Regina v Durham County Council and Others Ex Parte Huddleston CA 15-Mar-2000
A quarry owner had allowed his mineral extraction licence to lapse, and sought to renew the permission. The authority failed to issue a decision within the appropriate time period, and a deemed permission was granted. The UK system appeared not to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.140009

Tarmac Materials Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment: Admn 6 Jul 1999

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 644

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Pyx Granite Co Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1958
Pyx Granite had the right to quarry in two areas of the Malvern Hills. The company required permission to break fresh surface on one of the sites.
Held: Conditions attached to the planning permission relating to such matters as the times when . .
Cited – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1980
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139908

Alfred Mcalpine Homes (Yorkshire) Limited v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions: Admn 23 Jun 1999

The claimant sought an interim declaration that the UDP was invalid insofar as it redesignated its land from housing to urban green space.
Held: At an interim stage the balance of convenience lay with the respondent. Application refused.

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 586

Links:

Bailii

Planning

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139850

Regina v East Sussex County Council ex parte ARC Ltd and Ross and Simpson (Rye Harbour) Ltd: Admn 24 Jun 1999

A notice of decision of a mineral planning authority was deemed to be served when delivered or receipted, and not upon the date posted. Where the time limit for service of the notice expired between its being sent and received, that period had expired, and the notice invalidated.

Citations:

Times 13-Oct-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 590

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environment Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139854

Skerritts of Nottingham Limited v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions v and Harrow London Borough Council (No 2): Admn 4 Jun 1999

A metal framed marquee erected on the same site each year and kept up until October, did not require planning permission. The decision that it did because it was a building was flawed. Insufficient attention had been given to whether there were any building operations which had taken place in connection with it.

Citations:

Times 20-Oct-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 519

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 55

Planning

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139783

Regina v Epping Forest District Council ex parte Philcox: Admn 18 May 1999

Application seeking leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by Epping Forest District Council, dated 2nd July 1998, to issue a certificate of lawfulness of an existing use.

Judges:

Keene J

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 450

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Epping Forest Borough Council ex parte Philcox Admn 29-Jan-1998
The claimant sought permission to bring a judicial review of the respondent’s decision to grant a certificate of lawful use. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Regina v Epping Forest District Council, ex parte Philcox (2) Admn 13-Apr-2000
Application for judicial review of the respondent’s decision to grant a certificate of lawful established use. The applicant submits that the respondent acted unlawfully because the person who made the successful application had been committing . .
See Also – Epping Forest District Council v Philcox CA 13-Apr-2000
Where an activity had been continuing without planning permission for 10 years it was no obstacle to obtaining a certificate of lawful use that the activity had been illegal because it had been carried out without a waste management licence. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139714

Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Andrew Tew; George Daniel Milne; and Steven Garner: Admn 7 May 1999

An outline application for a shopping development, gave no details of the expected floor area, and nor was there an environmental assessment.
Held: The failure to give the floor area was not critical, but even at this stage the ommission of the environmental impact plan was. A policy must be read in the context of the legislative framework and must be read fairly and as a whole.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Gazette 19-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 409, [2001] JPL 407, [2000] JPL 54, [2001] Env LR 22, [1999] 3 PLR 74

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1980
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be . .

Cited by:

Cited – Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham Admn 15-May-2003
Outline permission was granted for a large development, reserving certain matters. The applicant challenged the permission saying that the application had not included the information required under the Regulations, and the authority had failed to . .
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 – The British Beer and Pub Association and others v Canterbury City Council Admn 24-Jun-2005
The council had required of applicants for liquor licenses more detailed information than was required by the statute. The Association challenged their policy.
Held: One aim of the legislation is to allow licensing authorities to provide a . .
Se Also – 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 . .
Cited – Gosbee and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 20-Mar-2003
A bungalow was not demolished as required by a condition when planning permission for a new dwelling was given. An enforcement notice was issued requiring the demolition of the bungalow.
Held: ‘in determining whether the interference is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Administrative

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139673

Patrick Leonard Berridge and others v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council: Admn 29 Apr 1999

Alternative routes for a trans-pennine train route were in a draft Unitary Development Plan. At the draft deposit stage it was amended to affect the applicant’s land, but he was not informed.
Held: There was no need to notify in that way.

Citations:

Gazette 12-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 375

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139639

Regina (Westminster City Council) v British Waterways Board: HL 1985

The tenant occupied land next to a canal under a lease from the Defendants. The landlord opposed a renewal saying they wished to occupy the land themselves for the purposes of a marina. The tenant said the plan was unrealistic, because it would not get planning permission for the change of use (the tenant was also the planning authority).
Held: The test was objective. Would a reasonable man, looking at the situation from the outside think there was a reasonable prospect of planning permission being given. The tenant’s own occupation was not a legitimate planning objection, and the landlord had established a reasonable prospect of planning permission being granted. The House had to consider whether ‘the desirability of preserving an existing use of land may by itself afford a valid planning reason for refusing permission for a change of use’: ‘As it seems to me, the preservation of an existing use (which is temporarily suspended) cannot afford a ground to refuse permission for an otherwise acceptable change of use, unless it can be shown that the refusal may reasonably be expected to lead to a resumption of the suspended use. This raises questions as to the true scope, for planning purposes, of the established existing use of the premises to which I must shortly revert . . . ‘In a contest between the planning merits of two competing uses, to justify refusal of permission for use B on the sole ground that use A ought to be preserved, it must, in my view, be necessary at least to show a balance of probability that, if permission is refused for use B, the land in dispute will be effectively put to use A’.
Lord Bridge of Harwich said: ‘So long as the mixture of uses on the premises, which the judge held to be the relevant planning unit, remain substantially unchanged, there would be no material change of use. Those uses, as already indicated, included workshops, offices, stores, messing facilities and parking for a variety of vehicles both under cover and in the open. This is just such a mixture of uses as would be required by a wide variety of undertakings whose business was the operation of some kind of vehicular transport and who required a base from which to operate. Whether, in any particular case, the proposed use of the premises by such an undertaking would involve a material change of use would depend on the detailed nature of the proposal. But it would be of no relevance to the use of the premises to inquire for what purpose the vehicles parked there were to be used when they left their base.’
and ‘Before turning to the planning issues on which this appeal ultimately depends, it is necessary to dispose first of a question arising upon the construction of section 30(1)(g) of the Act of 1954. Since there has been no actual planning application by the respondents for permission to change the use of the premises and since we know that any such application would be refused by the appellants as local planning authority, what are the circumstances, necessarily hypothetical, in which the respondents’ prospects of success in such an appeal to the Secretary of State must be considered? More particularly, are the respondents’ prospects of success in such an appeal to be considered on the assumption that, when the Secretary of State has to decide the appeal, the respondents are entitled to possession of the premises and the appellants’ occupation has ceased? My Lords, it seems to me that an affirmative answer to that question is inescapable. A landlord opposing the grant of a new tenancy under section 30(1)(f) or (g) seeks to establish what he intends to do ‘on the termination of the current tenancy.’ If the only obstacle to his implementing an admittedly genuine intention is a suggested difficulty in obtaining a necessary planning permission, the plain language of the Act of 1954 requires that his prospect of success in overcoming that difficulty should be assessed on the footing that he is entitled to possession . . I hope I do Walton J no injustice, but I find it difficult to resist the conclusion that he approached the planning issue on the assumption of an uninterrupted occupation of the premises by the appellants (which the grant of a new tenancy would, of course, in practice ensure) and failed to appreciate that the Act of 1954 requires, for this purpose, a hypothetical resumption of possession by the respondents to be assumed . . if the notional planning appeal is considered on the assumption that the respondent landlords are entitled to resume possession, the continued use of the premises for the purpose for which they are presently used by the appellant tenants is by no means an inevitable consequence of the refusal of permission . . The Court of Appeal . . correctly approached the question of the respondents’ prospects of success in a notional planning appeal on the basis of an assumed entitlement to possession . . For my part, I find it difficult to see how [Westminster’s] argument can be sustained at all, once it is appreciated that the respondents’ prospects of success in a notional planning appeal must be considered on the assumption that they, not the appellants, are in possession.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich

Citations:

[1985] 1 AC 476, [1984] 3 WLR 1047

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Clyde and Co v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1977
Planning permission had been granted for an office block, together with 8 flats as part of the same building. The building was largely erected, with the residential part incomplete. There was an application to change the existing permitted use of . .
Approved – Gregson v Cyril Lord Ltd CA 1962
A landlord opposing the grant of a new tenancy on the basis that he wished to conduct his own business from the premises, need not show that everything is in place to conduct the new business, but must be able to show that most obstacles to starting . .

Cited by:

Applied – Sussex Investments Limited v The Secretary Of State For The Environment, Spelthorne Borough Council Admn 28-Oct-1996
The plaintiff requested that an enforcement notice should be quashed. Two earlier decision notices had already been quashed. At issue was a houseboat constructed on a floating wooden raft. There was an existing use certificate for a houseboat. Was . .
Cited – London Residuary Body v Lambeth London Borough Council HL 1990
Planning battles had raged over the use of the former GLC County Hall. The question was whether it was desirable and appropriate to retain use of part of the building for London Government offices and centred on the ‘competing needs’ test.
Cited – Bloomsbury Health Authority v Secretary of State for the Environment 27-Jul-1992
Application was made for planning permission to use a redundant hospital building in Covent Garden for primarily office use. Policies of the local planning authority sought not only to restrain office use, but also to seek residential accommodation . .
Cited – Jackson Projects Limited v Secretary of State for Environment v Ipswich Borough Council Admn 9-Dec-1997
Application was made for a change of use for premises to Class B1 purposes. The draft local plan sought residential use of the premises. A lawful development certificate existed for Class B8 purposes. The applicant submitted at the Inquiry that, in . .
Cited – Christchurch Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 16-Dec-1993
The council appealed against the inspector’s decision to grant permission to a construction company to build houses on land. The land had formerly been used as a school playing field and was now surplus to requirements. The Council wished to put the . .
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 . .
Cited – Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports CA 10-May-2012
The tenant appealed against a finding that the landlord was entitled to resist renewal of its lease under the 1954 Act challenging the stated intention of the landlord to occupy the premises for its own business purposes. It said that the proposed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Planning

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.182964

Regina v St Edmundsbury Borough Council (ex parte Walton): Admn 13 Apr 1999

The power to judge whether an application for planning permission would have substantial environmental effect was not capable of being exercised by an officer of the Council without an express delegation of that power. The decision as to whether there should be an environmental statement was an important one, and that if an authority wished to delegate the decision to an officer, it had to do so formally and could not rely on some general practice alone.

Judges:

Hooper J

Citations:

Times 05-May-1999, [1999] JPL 805, [1999] EWHC Admin 298

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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

Planning, Environment, Local Government

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139562

Davenport v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham: Admn 22 Mar 1999

A planning condition, relating to matters on adjoining land outside the ambit of the land the subject of the permission, was valid, provided the condition was capable of fulfilment by the applicant, despite not being the land owner.

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 248

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139512

Bridle v Secretary of State for Environment and Chelmsford District Council: Admn 3 Mar 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 190

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Bridle v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions QBD 16-Nov-2000
The landowner had applied for and had been refused change of use from an agricultural building to residential land. He subsequently applied for similar permission in respect of a goat shed. The council failed to determine his application, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139454

Panton and Farmer v Secretary of State for Environment , Transport and Regions and and Vale of White Horse District Council: Admn 16 Dec 1998

When granting a certificate of lawful use and development, the inspector should include uses as primary even though the uses as such may be dormant at the time of the application unless the suspension of use was as a result of a loss of the right in law.

Citations:

Times 21-Jan-1999, [1998] EWHC Admin 1138, [1999] 1 PLR 92

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 191

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and another v Thurrock Borough Council CA 27-Feb-2002
Land on a farm had been used intermittently for many years as an airfield. The local authority issued two enforcement notices, one in respect of a building used as a hangar, and one for unlawful change of use from domestic and agricultural purposes . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139260

Walton v Sedgefield Borough Council: Admn 16 Nov 1998

When an enforcement notice had been served, it was enough evidence in the circumstances that the person served was an owner of the land within the Act to show that he had applied for change of use of the land stating that he was the owner of the land

Citations:

Gazette 25-Nov-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 1071

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 179(2), Town and Country Planning Act 1990 179(2)

Planning

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.139192

Westminster City Council v Moran: Admn 12 Jun 1998

An advertisement which was displayed regularly enough could come to be displayed continually. Advertisement board nearly always placed on highway outside public house. Parliament had intended clear difference between continually and continuously

Citations:

Times 14-Oct-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 637

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 (1992 No 666)

Planning

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138758