Category: Planning

Prossor v Minister of Housing and Local Government: 1968

The owner of a garage sought planning permission to replace a repair shop on part of his site with a new building. There had been an established use as a petrol filling station and motor repair shop. The permission was granted subject to a restriction preventing retail sales from the new building. He later claimed existing use rights for the sale of used cars from the plot.
Held: Where a land-owner applies for planning permission and implements it even in part, that is sufficient to require him to abide by any conditions in that permission.
An established use may be lost if a planning permission inconsistent with that use is obtained and implemented.
Lord Parker CJ said: ‘Assuming . . that there was at all material time prior to April 1964 an existing use right running on this land for the display and sale of motor cars, yet by adopting the permission granted in April 1964, the appellant’s predecessor, as it seems to me, gave up any possible existing use rights in that regard which he may have had. The planning history of this site, as it were, seems to me to begin afresh on 4 April 1964, with the grant of this permission, a permission which was taken up and used.’

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

(1968) 67 LGR 109

Cited by:

Explained – 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 . .
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: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185797

Kingston London Borough Council v Environment Secretary: 1973

Planning was granted for the rebuilding of a railway station on condition that the land allocated for parking should be made available for such purposes at all times and used for no other purpose. The station was duly rebuilt but the car park was not provided. The local planning authority served an enforcement notice requiring compliance with the condition.
Held: The words of the statute clearly on their face entitle the local planning authority to impose conditions which affect land not the subject of the application itself and which go to the restriction of the past user or removal of existing work. Although they are wide it has been recognised for a long time that they are subject to certain restrictions. The two principal restrictions which the court had placed on those words are first that a condition is invalid as being contrary to law unless it is reasonably related to the development in the planning permission which has been granted: it must not be used for an ulterior purpose, and second a condition which is so clearly unreasonable that no reasonable planning authority could have imposed it may be regarded as ultra vires and contrary to law and treated as such in proceedings in this court

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1973] 1 WLR 1549

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 by:

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

Planning, Administrative

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183689

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Ahern: 1989

Citations:

[1989] 2 PLR 96

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

Planning

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183500

North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment: 1992

Citations:

[1992] 3 PLR 113

Cited by:

Cited – JJ Gallagher Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another QBD 23-Aug-2002
Application was made for permission for an A2 use on land for which permission had previously been granted for A1 use. The Secretary of State reversed the inspector’s decision on the basis that he had failed to follow the necessary sequence of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183038

Carpets of Worth Limited v Wire Forest District Council: 1991

Citations:

[1991] 2 PLR 84

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Planning

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183012

Mole Valley District Council v Smith: 1992

The local authority sought to use its powers under the Act to enforce planning control over gypsies.

Citations:

[1992] 90 LGR 557

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 222

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 – Hambleton District Council v Bird CA 1995
The local authority sought an injunction to restrain the respondent Gypsies from use of land they owned, for residential caravans. The Gypsies had used the site, in breach of planning control, for a number of years. The judge had refused an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182491

Harrods Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another: CA 7 Mar 2002

The applicant sought to allow the roof of its store to be used as a helicopter landing pad, and sought a lawful use certificate. It asserted that such a use was incidental to its main normal use. The secretary of state refused a certificate, against the inspector’s advice, saying that such a use was not ordinarily incidental to use as a department store. The store appealed saying that the insertion of the word ‘ordinarily’ was an unlawful gloss on the statute.
Held: The statute must be followed. A change of use normally associated with the operation of department stores in general would not be material. A proposed use particular this store, and had significant planning consequences, would amount to a material change of use. Neighbours might reasonably expect it to be subjected to the scrutiny of the planning procedure.

Judges:

Lords Justice Schiemann and Sedley and Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

Gazette 21-Mar-2002, Times 03-Apr-2002

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 55(1), Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 A1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lydcare Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 1984
. .
Cited – Hussain v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 1971
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.168076

Ramsey and Another v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another: CA 1 Feb 2002

The applicant sought a lawful development certificate in respect of an off-road vehicle track created on their farm. It was said that the proposed use was temporary only.
Held: In making their decision, the inspector and the judge had wrongly included the physical changes as indicating that the proposed use was not temporary. Such physical changes should only be taken into account where they were such as to make the reversion to previous uses more difficult. The Act described the tests, of duration, and reversion, and those should not be added to.

Judges:

Aldous, Robert Walker, Keene, LLJ

Citations:

Times 04-Mar-2002, Gazette 14-Mar-2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.167720

Harrods Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 20 Jul 2001

The applicant appealed refusal of the grant of a lawful use certificate, for the helicopter landing pad on the roof of their premises for use by the chairman. The issue was whether the use was such as to constitute an ancillary use. A restrictive interpretation so as to include the words ‘ordinarily incidental’ would support Parliament’s intention that material changes of use should be subject to planning control. The proper test was ‘ordinarily incidental/ancillary,’ not ‘incidental/ancillary’. The appeal was refused.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.166806

Pine Valley Developments Ltd And Others v Ireland: ECHR 29 Nov 1991

ECHR Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Violation of Art. 14+P1-1; No violation of Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved
The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in circumstances where the domestic courts declared the planning permission a nullity on the ground that it had been granted ultra vires. A legitimate expectation relating to property may constitute a possession protected by Article 1 at any rate if it can be regarded as a component of property protected by Article 1. a legitimate expectation may arise notwithstanding the fact that it was beyond the powers of the public body which fostered the expectation to realise the expectation. The legitimate expectation cannot entitle a party to realisation by the public body of the expectation which it is beyond the powers of the public body to realise, but may entitle him to other relief which it is within the powers of the public body to afford, e.g. the benevolent exercise of a discretion available to alleviate the injustice or payment of compensation. The fact that the expectation was founded on an ultra vires act or that the public body had no power to realise the expectation raised and the reason why in law it had no such power (e.g. the potential adverse effect on third parties) may be a reason, and indeed a strong reason, going to the justification for the interference and its proportionality.

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-1991, 12742/87, 43/1990/234/300, [1991] 14 EHRR 319

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Stretch v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jun-2003
The claimant had taken a lease of property from a local authority. Relying upon an option for renewal, he invested substantially in the property, but it was then decided that the option was ultra vires.
Held: Property rights protected under . .
Cited – Rowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd and Others v Flood and Others SC 11-Apr-2017
Three newspaper publishers, having lost defamation cases, challenged the levels of costs awarded against them, saying that the levels infringed their own rights of free speech.
Held: Each of the three appeals was dismissed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.165131

Regina v Ceredigion County Council ex parte McKeown: Admn 6 Jun 1997

The claimant sought judicial review of the grant of planning permission for a wind farm. Laws J said that it was nearly impossible to conceive of a case in which leave to move for judicial review would be granted to attack a planning permission when the application was lodged more than six weeks after the planning permission had been granted.

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 526, [1998] 2 PLR 1, [1997] COD 463

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Finn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council and MK Windfarm Ltd CA 10-Oct-2008
Judicial Review must be timely
The appellant challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm on neighbouring land. His application for judicial review had been rejected for delay and on the merits.
Held: The court repeated the requirement that an application must be both . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.137471

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 3 May 2001

Two supermarkets sought permission to develop neighbouring sites. The council preferred one, and set put to make compulsory purchase orders from the other to allow it to proceed. The second was later granted permission, and objected to the CPO. It was not necessary to give greater respect to the need to avoid Compulsory Purchase, and the need to support the preferred scheme was a compelling case in the public interest, so as to justify the making of the compulsory purchase order, which was confirmed. The test had not been significantly tightened by the Act.

Citations:

Gazette 03-May-2001

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Land, Human Rights

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88982

Regina v Northampton Borough Council ex parte Rice and Co (Northampton) Ltd and Another: QBD 20 May 1998

A Council decision to approve an application for planning consent was not Wednesbury unreasonable since it had clearly investigated the application very fully and made a decision consistent with own policies.

Citations:

Gazette 20-May-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.87459

Regina v Tandbridge District Council and Another, Ex Parte Al-Fayed: CA 1 Feb 2000

A planning authority disallowed an objection to the erection of a mobile telephone transmitter. Although there had been an omission in the procedure followed by the council, it was clear that it had in fact considered the evidence put forward by the objector, and had made its decision in the light of that evidence. Objectively unjustified fears in a local community might be taken into account, but in this case they should not.

Citations:

Times 01-Feb-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Tandridge District Council, ex parte Al-Fayed QBD 27-Jan-1999
A local authority should give great weight to authoritative scientific advice given by statutory bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive and National Radiological Protection Board as to the safety of proposed developments. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v Tandridge District Council, ex parte Al-Fayed QBD 27-Jan-1999
A local authority should give great weight to authoritative scientific advice given by statutory bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive and National Radiological Protection Board as to the safety of proposed developments. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Administrative, Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.85583

Carter and Another v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Carrick District Council: CA 6 Apr 1994

The District Council issued an established user certificate for a caravan on the appellants’ lands. The appellants then replaced the caravan with a ‘park home’ for which planning permission was refused and enforcement notices were issued by the council. This ‘park home’ had been delivered to the site in four prefabricated sections and then bolted together and placed on concrete blocks. It had no wheels or sub-frame.
Held: The ‘Park Home’ could only be moved after being dismantled. It could not be moved as a single unit and was not a caravan under the Act.
Russell LJ said: ‘In order to qualify for the description ‘caravan’ in section 29 it is therefore ‘the structure’ that has to possess two qualities. The first part of the section provides that it is necessary for ‘the structure’ to be designed or adapted for human habitation. This, in my view, clearly contemplates the structure as a whole, as a single unit, and not the component parts of it. The second quality which ‘the structure’ has to possess is mobility. The structure has to be capable of being moved by being towed or transported on a single motor vehicle or trailer. ‘The structure’ contemplated by the second part of the section is, in my judgment, precisely the same structure as that contemplated by the first part of the section, not a structure which has been dismantled before loading has taken place. In my view the second limb of the definition can therefore refer only to a whole single structure and not to component parts of it.’
Sir Stephen Brown P said that it was straining the language of the section to an unacceptable degree to seek to embrace in the definition, a structure which was prefabricated in as many as four separate sections: ‘In order to qualify for the description ‘caravan’ in section 29 it is therefore ‘the structure’ that has to possess two qualities. The first part of the section provides that it is necessary for ‘the structure’ to be designed or adapted for human habitation. This, in my view, clearly contemplates the structure as a whole, as a single unit, and not the component parts of it. The second quality which ‘the structure’ has to possess is mobility. The structure has to be capable of being moved by being towed or transported on a single motor vehicle or trailer. ‘The structure’ contemplated by the second part of the section is, in my judgment, precisely the same structure as that contemplated by the first part of the section, not a structure which has been dismantled before loading has taken place. In my view the second limb of the definition can therefore refer only to a whole single structure and not to component parts of it.’

Judges:

Russell LJ, Sir Stephen Brown P

Citations:

Times 06-Apr-1994, Ind Summary 04-Apr-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 1212

Statutes:

Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 29(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Howard v Charlton CA 25-Jul-2002
The applicant had a mobile home with the benefit of protection under the Act. He built a permanent porch for the home. The land owner appealed refusal of an order to say that she had lost her rights under the Act. He argued that it had lost its . .
Cited – 57 Developments Ltd v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland ChNI 9-Feb-2004
. .
Cited – Jones v Green CA 16-Dec-2005
The appellant challenged the decision to reverse grant of planning permission for the siting of caravans or mobile homes. . .
Cited – Brightlingsea Haven Ltd and Another v Morris and others QBD 30-Oct-2008
The caravan park operated under planning consents requiring the caravans to be occupied only during certain months. The defendants had bought their mobile homes from the claimants to occupy full time, and said that the claimants knew of this. The . .
Cited – Green, Regina (on the Application Of) v First Secretary of State and others Admn 13-Apr-2005
Appeal was made against the decision to allow and refuse changes of use on land for the siting of caravans and mobile homes. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.78920

Safeway Stores plc v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Others: QBD 3 Mar 1999

An inspector granting permission for an out of town development despite the effect on the town centre had not failed to have proper regard to PPG 6. A change in the wording dropping the requirement for an assessment of the affect on the town ‘as a whole’ was not a significant policy change.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Mar-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88978

Samuel v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another: QBD 1 Jul 1998

Inspector’s decision that any residential use of a caravan involved change of use was not sustainable by use as kitchen for staff in cattery. Notice to remove the caravan went beyond what was needed; but notice re unmoved green belt encroachment was upheld.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Jul-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Cord v Secretary of State for the Environment 1981
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88995

Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2001

A larch tree overhung a garden, but was protected by a tree preservation order. The inspector declined authority to lop it on the basis of its value to the amenity. The Secretary overruled this but his decision was, in turn, set aside by the court on the basis that it was first too indistinct to allow the parties to know just what was allowed, and also that in denying the damage to the amenity value, he had failed to give sufficient reasons for going against the inspector.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Mar-2001, Gazette 29-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Environment

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88780

Attorney-General v Bastow: 1957

The case involved an attempt by a local authority to enforce planning control by a relator action requiring the removal of caravans on land in breach of planning control. The use of the service of stop notices, are supported by the power of the Attorney General on relation of a local authority to claim an injunction restraining a breach of planning law

Citations:

[1957] 1 QB 514

Cited by:

Cited – Attorney-General v Able and Others QBD 28-Apr-1983
The Attorney General sought a declaration as to whether it would be the crime of aiding and abetting or counselling and procuring suicide, to distribute a booklet published by the respondent which described various effective ways of committing . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.180687

South Northamptonshire Council v Northamptonshire County Council: Admn 20 Dec 2001

The respondent council prepared a structure plan for an area enclosing its own and the claimant’s area. The plan said that housing needs could not be met within its won area, and proposed a strategic development area (SDA). A later study suggested that the borough’s requirements could be met within it’s own boundaries, and the claimant challenged the proposed SDA.
Held: The defendant’s answer was inadequate in that it failed properly to address the fundamental concerns of the claimant. Provisions for phasing did not address the basic question of whether an SDA was required at all. The reasons given were insufficient also to allow the claimant to know whether their concerns had been accepted or rejected. Nevertheless, the order made was to delay the structure plan to allow the respondent to address the complaint properly.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Jan-2002

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 2878, Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) (England) Regulations 1999 16(1) 17(6)

Planning

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.167422

Cairns, Regina (on The Application of) v Hertfordshire County Council: Admn 2 Aug 2018

Claim for judicial review of a grant of conditional planning permission by the Defendant to itself for the construction of a new secondary school, on a site which is in the Green Belt.

Judges:

Lang DBE J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2050 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620666

Hallam Land Management Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: CA 31 Jul 2018

‘In deciding an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for housing development, how far does the decision-maker have to go in calculating the extent of any shortfall in the five-year supply of housing land? ‘

Judges:

Lord Justice Davis, Lord Justice Lindblom and Lord Justice Hickinbottom

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1808

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620603

Tate, Regina (on The Application of) v Leffers-Smith: CA 29 Jun 2018

Did a local planning authority, when granting planning permission for the construction of a dwelling-house in a village in the Green Belt, err in law in failing to provide reasons for its conclusion that the development would be ‘limited infilling’, contrary to the view of an inspector in a previous appeal decision?

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1519

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618966

Pennine Raceway Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 1983

The claimant had been granted a contractual right to use an airfield for arranging motor racing events. The planning consent was revoked, and compensation was claimed under s164 as ‘a person interested in the land’ which ‘is a section designed to compensate those who have incurred expenditure in reliance upon a permitted use only to find that they now face loss because the planning authority has revoked the permission. The subject matter of the compensation is not the compulsory acquisition of land, but the restriction upon use. Clearly some limit has to be placed upon the right to claim compensation because many a person may be affected by a change in the permitted use of land while not themselves being directly concerned to make any use of it. In the present case, for example, an omnibus company might have planned to lay on transport facilities to and from the airfield. In my opinion this section envisages as deserving of compensation a person who has a right in relation to the land, which right is adversely affected by the restriction on use.’ and ‘The Act refers to an ‘interest in land’ in other sections and to my mind the change to the less technical language of ‘interested in the land’ in section 164 is deliberate. I cannot see that it was dictated by the desire to achieve economy of language, for the saving between ‘a person interested in the land’ and ‘a person with an interest in the land’ is minimal. I therefore feel free to interpret the phrase without regard to technical terms. In the context of the Act, and section 164 in particular, a person who, like the appellants, has an enforceable right as against the owner to use the land in the way which has now been prohibited is ‘a person interested in the land’ within section 164.’

Judges:

Eveleigh LJ, Kerr LJ, Stephenson LJ

Citations:

[1983] QB 382

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1971 164

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Plimmer v Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Wellington PC 1884
(New Zealand) Mr Plimmer had occupied land under a revocable licence from the Corporation’s predecessor-in-title and at their request had made extensive improvements to it. He sought compensation when the land was to be vested in the defendant. The . .

Cited by:

Per incuriam – International Traders Ferry Ltd v Adur District Council CA 26-Feb-2004
The council served a stop notice. The company sought compensation. The council replied that the company had no legal or equitable interest in the land affected.
Held: The company had occupied the land under a licence. A contractual licensee on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.194773

Ball v Secretary of Satte for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 27 Jan 2000

The applicant had appealed against an enforcement notice saying that the four year rule applied. The inspector issued his decision after the expiry of a time limit, but after the applicant had requested a further short period in which to make representations. It was held to be unfair to have proceeded without allowing more than a week for representations. B had suffered substantial prejudice for the failure to allow him to make such representations, and the decision was set aside.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Jan-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Natural Justice, Administrative

Updated: 19 April 2022; Ref: scu.78119

Aannemersbedriijf P K Kraaijeveld v Gedeputeerde Staten Van Zuid-Holland ‘the Dutch-Dykes case): ECJ 24 Oct 1996

ECJ The fact that in this case the Member States have a discretion under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive does not preclude judicial review of the question whether the national authorities exceeded their discretion (see, in particular, VERBOND VAN NEDERLANDSE ONDERNEMINGEN). Consequently where, pursuant to national law, a court must or may raise of its own motion pleas in law based on a binding national rule which were not put forward by the parties, it must, for matters within its jurisdiction, examine of its own motion whether the legislative or administrative authorities of the Member State remained within the limits of their discretion under Article 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive.

Citations:

C-72/95, [1997] 3 CMLR 1, [1996] ECR I-0503, [1996] EUECJ C-72/95, [1996] ECR I-5403

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC)

Jurisdiction:

European

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 – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Alford Admn 5-May-2005
The land owner had restored derelict farm buildings to previous levels of agricultural production. She had applied manure and calcified seaweed to the land. She appealed conviction for having carried out projects on land without satiisfying the . .
Cited – Save Britain’s Heritage, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 14-May-2010
The claimant challenged the order allowing the demolition of a disused listed building saying that the Direction was contrary to European law in not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Secretary of State said an EIA was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.161538

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 permission subject to conditions. It was argued that the lack of reasons meant that the conditions were a nullity and could not be relied upon in enforcement notice proceedings.
Held: A failure to comply with the duty to give reasons for the imposition of a planning condition did not invalidate the condition (let alone the planning permission) and the duty could be enforced by mandamus. The tribunal’s task is to seek to do what is just in all the circumstances.
Winn J said: ‘As a matter of construction it seems clear that article 5(9)(a) requires (1) that the notice of decision be in writing; (2) the reasons be stated in writing; (3) that the notice be accompanied by a notification in the prescribed form; these requirements can be satisfied by a single document or by three physically separate documents.
Should requirement (1) not be complied with, disputes might well arise as to the calculation of the time limit for appeal to the Minister fixed by section 16(1) of the Act; should requirement (3) not be satisfied an applicant might be left in ignorance of his rights. Each of those requirements is therefore essential to the statutory purposes. The interposition of requirement (2) militates strongly against any view that it can be regarded as merely directory; all three requirements appear to be mandatory. It does not follow necessarily that non-compliance with any one of them will render the notice null in law, still less that the decision of which notice purports to be given is itself of no legal effect. The court is not concerned in the instant case with any non-compliance with requirement (1) or requirement (3): the effect of non-compliance with requirement (2) must be decided.
No doubt such a non-compliance may be and often will be inconvenient for an applicant; he may find it necessary to give notice of appeal to the Minister before he knows the strength or weakness of the case which he will have to meet. However, he could undoubtedly demand, as of right, a statement of reasons and by threat or effect of an order of mandamus secure them, and it would be strange if the Minister did not adjourn his appeal until the reasons had been delivered and considered. In the sense that there is a duty to state the reason in writing requirement (2) is undoubtedly mandatory. Comparison may be made of the provisions of section 12 of the Tribunal and Enquiries Act, 1958, requiring that reasons, if requested, be stated, in general, for a decision: a non-compliance with those provisions would certainly found a mandamus.
It is another matter whether the notice of condition in the present case, or such a tribunal decision is rendered null by a failure to state reasons in writing: notwithstanding the obiter dicta of Salmon J this extreme result is not required for the effective achievement of the purposes of the statute nor intended, as a matter of construction, by Parliament.’

Judges:

Winn J

Citations:

[1964] 1 All ER 149, [1964] 2 QB 303

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order 1950

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Applied – London and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council HL 8-Nov-1979
Identifying ‘maandatory’ and ‘regulatory’
The appellants had sought a Certificate of Alternative Development. The certificate provided was defective in that it did not notify the appellants, as required, of their right to appeal. Their appeal out of time was refused.
Held: The House . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Others SC 3-Jul-2019
The second respondent sought a certificate from the Council determining that the lawful use of its store extended to sales of unlimited categories of goods including food. A certificate to that effect was refused by the Council, but granted by a . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Others SC 3-Jul-2019
The second respondent sought a certificate from the Council determining that the lawful use of its store extended to sales of unlimited categories of goods including food. A certificate to that effect was refused by the Council, but granted by a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.193785

Powergen UK Plc v Leicester City Council and Another: CA 19 May 2000

Judges:

Schiemann LJ

Citations:

[2000] JPL 1037, [2000] EWCA Civ 165

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Others SC 3-Jul-2019
The second respondent sought a certificate from the Council determining that the lawful use of its store extended to sales of unlimited categories of goods including food. A certificate to that effect was refused by the Council, but granted by a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.632181

Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment: HL 1985

The House considered the concept of a spent planning consent.
Held: This was a mineral operation and every shovelful dug amounted to another act of development. Therefore, although it had been begun, the planning permission was not spent and remained capable of implementation. A planning permission enures for the benefit of the relevant land and it is not, save in unusual circumstances, personalised so as to apply only to the applicant for the permission. A valid permission capable of implementation cannot be abandoned, but it is planning permission is ‘a permission that certain rights of ownership may be exercised but not a requirement that they must be.’
Lord Scarman said: ‘Planning control is the creature of statute. It is an imposition in the public interest of restrictions upon private rights of ownership of land. The public character of the law relating to planning control has been recognised by the House in Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578. It is a field of law in which the court should not introduce principles or rules derived from private law unless it be expressly authorised by Parliament or necessary in order to give effect to the purpose of the legislation. Planning law, though a comprehensive code imposed in the public interest, is of course based on the land law. Where the code is silent or ambiguous, resort to the principles of private law, especially property and contract law, may be necessary so that the courts may resolve difficulties by application of common law or equitable principles. But such cases will be exceptional, and if the statute law governs the situation, it will be an impermissible exercise of the judicial function to go beyond the statutory provision by applying such principles merely because they may appear to achieve a fairer solution to the problem being considered. As ever in the field of statute law, it is the duty of the courts to give effect to the intention of Parliament as evinced by the statute or statutory code considered as a whole.’ and ‘It is of course trite law that any number of planning permissions can validly co-exist for the development of the same land even though they be mutually inconsistent. In this respect planning permission reveals its true nature – a permission that certain rights of ownership may be exercised but not a requirement that they must be.’

Judges:

Lord Scarman

Citations:

[1985] 1 AC 132, [1984] 2 All ER 358

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 – White v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1989
W owned land which had been used for many years to store showground equipment over the winters. He applied for an existing use certificate. After refusing it, the authority issued enforcement proceedings. The inspector refused W’s appeal saying that . .
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 . .
Cited – Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The Court was asked as to the proper interpretation of paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework: ‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Others SC 3-Jul-2019
The second respondent sought a certificate from the Council determining that the lawful use of its store extended to sales of unlimited categories of goods including food. A certificate to that effect was refused by the Council, but granted by a . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Others SC 3-Jul-2019
The second respondent sought a certificate from the Council determining that the lawful use of its store extended to sales of unlimited categories of goods including food. A certificate to that effect was refused by the Council, but granted by a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.238434

London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Others: SC 3 Jul 2019

The second respondent sought a certificate from the Council determining that the lawful use of its store extended to sales of unlimited categories of goods including food. A certificate to that effect was refused by the Council, but granted by a planning inspector on appeal, and upheld by the lower courts. The Council, as local planning authority, now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The obvious and only natural interpretation of those parts of the document is that the Council was approving what was applied for: the variation of one condition from the original wording to the proposed wording, in effect substituting one for the other. There is nothing to indicate an intention to discharge the condition altogether, or to remove the restriction on the sale of food goods. The parties agreed that the grant was effective and it must be read within normal and accepted usage. The wording was clear, and the absence of a reason for the condition did not affect its validity.
A permission under section 73 can only take effect as an independent permission to carry out the same development as previously permitted, but subject to the new or amended conditions.

Judges:

Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 33, UKSC 2018/0099, [2019] 4 All ER 981, [2019] 2 P and CR 18, [2019] PTSR 1388, [2020] JPL 31, [2019] 1 WLR 4317

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 May 21 am Video, SC 2019 May 21 pm Video

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 73

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others CA 20-Apr-2018
The parties disputed the validity of the time-limit condition (condition 1), which required the ‘development to which this permission relates’ to be begun within three years.
Held: The Court upheld the inspector’s decision that this condition . .
At First Instance – London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 3-Oct-2017
Challenge to grant of certificate of lawful use for premises for the sale of food (other than hot food).
Held: Lambeth’s appeal failed. . .
Cited – Pye v Secretary of State for Environment and North Cornwall District Council Admn 5-May-1998
An application was made under section 73 to develop land without compliance with conditions previously attached to a planning permission, the relevant condition being that the development commence within five years of the date of planning . .
Cited – Regina v Leicester City Council ex parte Powergen UK Limited CA 2000
. .
Cited – I’m Your Man Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 25-Sep-1998
An application for temporary planning permission for seven years had been made, but the grant made no mention of the temporary nature and it so became a permanent unqualified grant. . .
Cited – Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 16-Dec-2015
The appellant challenged the grant of permission to the erection of wind turbines within sight of its golf course.
Held: The appeal failed. The challenge under section 36 was supported neither by the language or structure of the 1989 Act, and . .
Cited – Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Others HL 1-Jul-2009
Mutual Knowledge admissible to construe contract
The parties had entered into a development contract in respect of a site in Wandsworth, under which balancing compensation was to be paid. They disagreed as to its calculation. Persimmon sought rectification to reflect the negotiations.
Held: . .
Cited – Attorney General of Belize and others v Belize Telecom Ltd and Another PC 18-Mar-2009
(Belize) A company had been formed to manage telecommunications in Belize. The parties disputed the interpretation of its articles. Shares had been sold, but the company was structured so as to leave a degree of control with the government. It was . .
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 . .
Cited – Reid, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport and Local Government and Another Admn 7-Oct-2002
Planning permission was granted subject to conditions. Later one condition was lifted on a renewed application. It referred to the earlier permission, but not the earlier conditions explicitly.
Held: The permission was not clear, and therefore . .
Cited – Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1985
The House considered the concept of a spent planning consent.
Held: This was a mineral operation and every shovelful dug amounted to another act of development. Therefore, although it had been begun, the planning permission was not spent and . .
Cited – Powergen UK Plc v Leicester City Council and Another CA 19-May-2000
. .
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 . .
Cited – Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1985
The House considered the concept of a spent planning consent.
Held: This was a mineral operation and every shovelful dug amounted to another act of development. Therefore, although it had been begun, the planning permission was not spent and . .
Cited – Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Others HL 1-Jul-2009
Mutual Knowledge admissible to construe contract
The parties had entered into a development contract in respect of a site in Wandsworth, under which balancing compensation was to be paid. They disagreed as to its calculation. Persimmon sought rectification to reflect the negotiations.
Held: . .
Cited – Attorney General of Belize and others v Belize Telecom Ltd and Another PC 18-Mar-2009
(Belize) A company had been formed to manage telecommunications in Belize. The parties disputed the interpretation of its articles. Shares had been sold, but the company was structured so as to leave a degree of control with the government. It was . .
Cited – Sevenoaks District Council v First Secretary of State 2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.639248

Shortt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 22 Jul 2014

Judges:

Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2480 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council HL 1960
A grant of planning permission was subject to an agricultural occupancy condition: ‘The occupation of the houses shall be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture as defined by section 119(1) of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Shortt and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 18-Nov-2015
Appeal concerning the meaning of ‘dependants’ in an agricultural occupancy condition attached to a planning permission: ‘The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to persons employed or last employed solely or mainly and locally in agriculture . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.535158

George Wimpey UK Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another: Admn 22 Sep 2004

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2419 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Attorney-General ex relater Sutcliffe and Others v Calderdale Borough Council CA 1982
The court discussed whether a terrace of cottages was within the curtilage of an old factory which was a listed building. At first instance, Skinner J had held that they were, and that permission could not be granted for their demolition. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Land

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.219215

Anged v Diputacion General de Aragon C-236/16: ECJ 26 Apr 2018

Regional Tax – Protection of The Environment and Town and Country Planning – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regional tax on large retail establishments – Freedom of establishment – Protection of the environment and town and country planning – State aid – Selective measure

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:291, [2018] EUECJ C-236/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Planning, Taxes – Other

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609298

South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell: CA 2005

The Council had taken out an injunction under section 187B of the 1990 Act to prevent unknown persons placing caravans on certain lands. The defendants acted in breach of those injunctions, and the Council requested their committal for contempt. The defendant now appealed against committal.
Held: The appeal failed. a person became a party to proceedings by the very act of infringing the order: ‘In each of these appeals the appellant became a party to the proceedings when she did an act which brought her within the definition of defendant in the particular case’

Judges:

Sie Anthony Clarke MR

Citations:

[2006] 1 WLR 658, [2005] EWCA Civ 1429

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell and others QBD 7-Dec-2007
. .
Cited – Broxbourne Borough Council v Robb and Others QBD 27-Jun-2011
The Council applied for the committal of the defendant for an alleged breach of a without notice injunction. Notice of the injunction had been placed at the site, requiring nobody to move caravans onto the land.
Held: The application . .
Cited – Ineos Upstream Ltd and Others v Persons Unknown and Others ChD 23-Nov-2017
The claimant sought an injunction expressed to be against unknown persons.
Held: Morgan J expressed a degree of concern about orders having this effect, but concluded that (particularly in light of the South Cambridgeshire decision) this . .
Cited – Vastint Leeds Bv v Persons Unknown ChD 24-Sep-2018
The claimant company sought a final injunction to prevent others occupying its land in Leeds. It was a quia timet injunction anticipating future acts of occupation by caravans, fly-tipping and use of the land for illegal raves.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Contempt of Court

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.441228

Millington v Secretary of State for the Environment: QBD 1999

The court commented on provisions in a circular as to the correctness of imposing planning conditions where it was thought that they might not be fulfilled: ‘I think that that footnote is mistaken. Certainly the case leaves it open to the Secretary of State to refuse to impose such a condition if there are reasons other than the unlikelihood of implementation. But the unlikelihood of implementation is not by itself a sufficient reason to refuse, and allowing it to be policy cannot make it so.’

Judges:

Judge Rich QC

Citations:

(1999) 1 PLR 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council CA 25-Jun-1999
The fact that a new product was made on agricultural land from produce grown elsewhere on the land did not make that production process non-agricultural. The making of wine is capable of being agricultural use, and being thus free from planning . .
Cited – Douglas John Merritt v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Mendip District Council Admn 5-Aug-1999
The applicant appealed refusal of planning permission for residential development of a small plot of land. The said that the inspector had wrongly rejected the application of a Grampian condition on the basis that it would not be fulfilled and also . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Agriculture

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.229041

T Mobile (UK) Ltd and Others v First Decretary of State and Another: QBD 23 Jun 2004

The appellants wished to establish mobile phone masts.
Held: Provided the masts met the accepted international standards, it was not open to the inspector to act upon objections based upon allegations of threats to public health.

Judges:

Sir Richard Tucker

Citations:

Times 08-Jul-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Media, Planning

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.199252

Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment: QBD 22 Jun 1972

The appellants had purchased land which had been used as a dwelling with a lean-to annex which had been used as a scrap yard, selling off car parts. The appellant had reconstructed the annex with a shop front, and began to use it more substantially for the sale of car parts. The planning authority served an enforcement notice asserting a change of use and breach of planning control. On appeal both the appellant and respondent presented the site as a whole. The appeal failed, but the respondent had argued that the notice could apply only to the annex, falling within the definition on its own of a shop, and that therefore the enforcement referred to the annex alone. The appellant said that by considering only the annex, he had lost the ability to argue that as regards the site as a whole, there had been no material cange of use.
Held: The Secretary of State’s decision did not identify the reasoning used to reach his decision, and the matter must be remitted. Whilst the word shop would not naturally apply to the whole site, the accident of the language used by the planning authority could not determine what made up the planning unit. A good guide to what made up a planning unit was to consider the site as a whole until and unless some smaller unit could be identified from its physical and functional identity.
Bridge J: It ‘may equally be apt to consider the entire unit of occupation even though the occupier carries on a variety of activities and it is not possible to say hat one isincidental or ancillary to another’ and ‘however, it may frequently occur that within a single unit of occupation two or more physically separate and distinct areas are occupied for substantially different and unrelated purposes. In such a case each area used for a different main purpose (together with its incidental and ancillary activities) ought to be considered as a separate planning unit.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ, Willis, Bridge JJ

Citations:

[1972] 1 WLR 1207, [1972] 23 All ER 240

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1962 180

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – G Percy Trentham Ltd v Gloucestershire County Council CA 1966
Whenever it is possible to recognise a single main purpose of the occupier’s use of his land to which secondary activities are incidental, the whole unit of occupation should be considered as one planning unit.
Lord Parker CJ: ‘Town and Country . .

Cited by:

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. . .
Cited – Main v Secretary of State for Environment and South Oxfordshire District Council Admn 22-May-1998
. .
Cited – Stewart, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State for Environment and Another Admn 28-Jul-2004
. .
Cited – Thames Heliport Plc v London Borough of Tower Hamlets CA 28-Nov-1996
The use of a tethered barge as a heliport constituted a change of use of the land under the river. . .
Cited – Searle, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another Admn 7-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – Fidler v First Secretary of State and others Admn 1-Oct-2003
. .
Applied – Thomas David (Porthcawl) Ltd and others v Penybont Rural District Council and others 5-Oct-1972
The appellant complained that an enforcement notice had been served as to an entire plot of land when the activities complained of, sand and gravel extraction, had occurred on only two smaller parts.
Held: The site should be looked at as a . .
Applied – Jennings Motors Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and another CA 27-Nov-1981
The land owners had demolished a building and erected a new building on a small part of the entire site, but without obtaining planning permission. The local authority argued that this was a change of use and a breach of planning control.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.183692

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and another: Admn 25 Jun 2002

The land had had general B2 industrial use permission. Over the previous 4 years, it had begun to be used for the dismantling of vehicles. The inspector granted the permission seeking to impose conditions to ensure that it would be environmentally sensitive. The claimants challenged this on the basis that a reverter to the original use would also require permission which could be a better opportunity to control use.
Held: Section 57(1) provided that where a use had been challenged by an enforcement notice, the reverter to the previous established use was automatic. Though an enforcement notice had not been served, the inspector correctly surmised that one would be if permission were not granted. Accordingly the inspector acted properly in granting the permission subject to conditions.

Judges:

Mr Justice Sullivan

Citations:

Gazette 18-Jul-2002

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 57(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.174742

Petter and Harris v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Chichester District Council: CA 15 Mar 1999

Judges:

Nourse LJ, Buxton LJ, Sedley LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 975, (2000) 79 P and CR 214

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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 – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – JD Wetherspoon Plc, Regina (on the Application Of) v Guildford Borough Council Admn 11-Apr-2006
The company sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to apply its cumulative impact policy to their application for extended licensing hours.
Held: The company’s application amounted to a material variation of the license, and . .
Cited – Rencher-Paine v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 2-Mar-2011
The applicant challenged refusal of permission for his proposed one bedroom ‘earthship dwelling’. He ran an ostrich farm on the land, and wished to occupy it instead of the caravan presently occupies with temporary permission.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.145890

Nichols v The Secretary Of State For The Environment, Basildon District Council: Admn 21 Mar 1997

The applicants were gypsies. They located a mobile home on land within the green belt, but did not obtain planning permission. They attacked the decision report saying it had failed to follow the guidance as to the need for sites for gypsies, and had failed to take account of the personal circumstances of the applicants. The inspector had not quantified the need for gypsy sites, but had considered that aspect, and the personal circumstances. The decision stood.

Judges:

Malcom Spence QC

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 304

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 73A, Circular 1/94

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.137249

Cresswell and Cresswell v Pearson: Admn 20 Mar 1997

The grant of a temporary planning permission for a use that has previously been the subject of an enforcement notice has the effect of discharging the enforcement notice for all time, in so far as it relates to that use, rather than merely for the period for which the temporary planning permission is in force.

Citations:

Times 08-Apr-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 299, [1997] JPL 860

Statutes:

Magistrates Court Act 1980 111, Town and Country Planning Act 1990 180(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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, Magistrates

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.137244

London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: CA 20 Apr 2018

The parties disputed the validity of the time-limit condition (condition 1), which required the ‘development to which this permission relates’ to be begun within three years.
Held: The Court upheld the inspector’s decision that this condition was invalid, in circumstances where the relevant ‘development’ had been carried out many years before. Lewison LJ said: ‘I cannot see that the decision notice granted planning permission for any prospective development. The mere widening of the classes of goods that were permitted to be sold by retail does not amount to development at all. Conformably with the definition of ‘development’ in section 55 the only development to which the application could have related was the original erection of the store and the commencement of its use as a DIY store. It was that development that was permitted subject to the conditions that the application was designed to modify; and it was the planning permission permitting that development to which the decision notice referred.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Lewison
Lord Justice Hamblen
And
Lord Justice Coulson

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 844, [2018] WLR(D) 242, [2019] PTSR 143

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 192

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 3-Oct-2017
Challenge to grant of certificate of lawful use for premises for the sale of food (other than hot food).
Held: Lambeth’s appeal failed. . .
Cited – Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Others HL 1-Jul-2009
Mutual Knowledge admissible to construe contract
The parties had entered into a development contract in respect of a site in Wandsworth, under which balancing compensation was to be paid. They disagreed as to its calculation. Persimmon sought rectification to reflect the negotiations.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Others SC 3-Jul-2019
The second respondent sought a certificate from the Council determining that the lawful use of its store extended to sales of unlimited categories of goods including food. A certificate to that effect was refused by the Council, but granted by a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.614902