Category: Planning

Regina v Leicester City Council ex parte Powergen UK Limited: CA 2000

Judges:

Schiemann LJ

Citations:

[2000] 81 P and CR 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Leicestershire City Council Ex parte Powergen UK Plc QBD 17-Nov-1999
A planning permission had been granted requiring detailed proposals for the development to be delivered before a certain date. The applicant submitted proposals for part only of the site, requesting a variation to allow such a part proposal. The . .
Approved – 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 by:

Cited – Robert Hitchins Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Worcesteshire County Council and Others Admn 18-Nov-2014
A planning permission was granted with an agreement under section 106. A second permission was later granted. The court was now asked whether the section 106 agreement applied also to the second permission.
Held: As a matter of law, the . .
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: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.538889

Regina v Leicester City Council and Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc and Powergen UK Plc ex parte Safeway Stores: Admn 18 Jan 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Regina v Leicestershire City Council Ex parte Powergen UK Plc QBD 17-Nov-1999
A planning permission had been granted requiring detailed proposals for the development to be delivered before a certain date. The applicant submitted proposals for part only of the site, requesting a variation to allow such a part proposal. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.139301

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 ‘ The flexibility conferred on the Scottish Ministers in each of those conditions to modify the way in which the windfarm is constructed and operated does not enable them to alter the nature of the approved development.’
‘I see dangers in an approach which may lead to the impression that there is a special set of rules applying to planning conditions, as compared to other legal documents, or that the process is one of great complexity.’
and ‘Any such document of course must be interpreted in its particular legal and factual context. One aspect of that context is that a planning permission is a public document which may be relied on by parties unrelated to those originally involved . . It must also be borne in mind that planning conditions may be used to support criminal proceedings. Those are good reasons for a relatively cautious approach, for example in the well established rules limiting the categories of documents which may be used in interpreting a planning permission . . But such considerations arise from the legal framework within which planning permissions are granted. They do not require the adoption of a completely different approach to their interpretation.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2015] UKSC 74, [2015] WLR(D) 524, 2016 SLT 9, [2016] 1 WLR 85, 2016 SC (UKSC) 25, 2016 GWD 1-26, 2016 SCLR 67, UKSC 2015/0160

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

Electricity Act 1989 36

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

At Outer House – Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers and Another SCS 17-Oct-2013
Outer House – Court of Session – This petition for judicial review challenged the decisions of the Scottish Ministers (a) not to hold a public inquiry, and (b) to grant consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction and . .
At Outer House (2) – Trump International Gold Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers and Another SCS 11-Feb-2014
Outer House . .
At Inner House – Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers SCS 5-Jun-2015
The petitioner golf course objected to the consent to an offshore windfarm. . .
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 – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Cited – Regina v Ashford Borough Council ex parte Shepway District Council Admn 7-May-1998
The court set out the general rule in construing an outline planning permission which was clear, unambiguous and valid on its face. Regard could be had only to the planning permission itself and any conditions and the express reasons for them. . .
Cited – Carter Commercial Developments Ltd (In Administration) v Secretary of State For Transport, Local Government And The Regions, Mendip District Council CA 4-Dec-2002
Appeal from a decision that effectively was a decision on the proper construction of a condition in a planning permission. . .
Cited – Sevenoaks District Council, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 22-Mar-2004
There is no room for implying into condition 14 a further obligation that the developer must construct the development in accordance with the design statement. . .
Cited – Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc HL 21-Oct-2004
The claims arose in connection with the validity and alleged infringement of a European Patent on erythropoietin (‘EPO’).
Held: ‘Construction is objective in the sense that it is concerned with what a reasonable person to whom the utterance . .
Cited – Marley v Rawlings and Another (2) SC 18-Sep-2014
The parties had disputed the validity of a will, and the successful wife of the deceased argued that her costs should be paid by those challenging the will rather than from the estate.
Held: The solicitors (or their insurers) who had made the . .
Too Absolute – Trustees of the Walton-on-Thames Charities v Walton and Weybridge Urban District Council CA 1970
There is no room for an implied condition in a planning permission. Widgery LJ said: ‘I have never heard of an implied condition in a planning permission and I believe no such creature exists. Planning permission enures for the benefit of the land. . .
Cited – The Midcounties Co-Operative Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Forest of Dean District Council, Santon Group Developments Ltd Admn 20-Jul-2007
. .
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 – 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 – Hubert v Carmarthenshire County Council Admn 5-Aug-2015
Applications for judicial review which challenge the decisions of Carmarthenshire County Council to grant planning permission to the interested party for a single wind turbine. . .
Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another SC 2-Dec-2015
The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause . .
Cited – Hulme v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 26-May-2011
Permission had been granted for a windfarm, subject to a complex group of conditions, designed to mitigate noise, including (as it was described) ‘blade swish’. Condition 20 required the operator, in the event of a complaint from a local resident, . .
Cited – Telford and Wrekin Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 29-Jan-2013
Permission had been granted for use of a building as a garden centre subject to a condition in these terms: ‘prior to the garden centre hereby approved opening, details of the proposed types of products to be sold should be submitted to and agreed . .
Cited – Crisp from the Fens Ltd v Rutland County Council CA 1950
A permission was granted for the change of use of a building to use for making potato crisps subject to a condition confining its use to that of ‘the manufacture of potato crisps or any use within class III of [the Use Classes Order]’, in order ‘to . .
Cited – Carter Commercial Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for The Environment Admn 27-May-2002
Planning conditions should be interpreted benevolently and not narrowly or strictly. . .

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, Utilities

Leading Case

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.556980

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 permission.
Held: A Local Authority was correct to refuse to extend the time for the commencement of a development under a planning permission where the development would not be in accordance with the current planning policies.
Sullivan J said: ‘An application under section 73 is an application for planning permission: see section 73(1) . . Whilst section 73 applications are commonly referred to as applications to ‘amend’ the conditions attached to a planning permission, a decision under section 73(2) leaves the original planning permission intact and unamended. That is so whether the decision is to grant planning permission unconditionally or subject to different conditions under paragraph (a), or to refuse the application under paragraph (b), because planning permission should be granted subject to the same conditions.
In the former case, the applicant may choose whether to implement the original planning permission or the new planning permission; in the latter case, he is still free to implement the original planning permission . .’
and ‘ . . Prior to the enactment of (what is now) section 73, an applicant aggrieved by the imposition of the conditions had the right to appeal against the original planning permission, but such a course enabled the Local Planning Authority in making representations to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State when determining the appeal as though the application had been made to him in the first instance, to ‘go back on the original decision’ to grant planning permission. So the applicant might find that he had lost his planning permission altogether, even though his appeal had been confined to a complaint about a condition or conditions.
It was this problem which section 31A, now section 73, was intended to address …
While section 73 applications are commonly referred to as applications to ‘amend’ the conditions attached to a planning permission, a decision under section 73(2) leaves the original planning permission intact and un-amended. That is so whether the decision is to grant planning permission unconditionally or subject to different conditions under paragraph (a), or to refuse the application under paragraph (b), because planning permission should be granted subject to the same conditions.
In the former case, the applicant may choose whether to implement the original planning permission or the new planning permission; in the latter case, he is still free to implement the original planning permission. Thus, it is not possible to ‘go back on the original planning permission’ under section 73. It remains as a base line, whether the application under section 73 is approved or refused, in contrast to the position that previously obtained.
The original planning permission comprises not merely the description of the development in the operative part of the planning permission . . but also the conditions subject to which the development was permitted to be carried out …’

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Gazette 13-May-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 483, [1998] 3 PLR 72

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 73

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Robert Hitchins Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Worcesteshire County Council and Others Admn 18-Nov-2014
A planning permission was granted with an agreement under section 106. A second permission was later granted. The court was now asked whether the section 106 agreement applied also to the second permission.
Held: As a matter of law, the . .
Approved – Regina v Leicestershire City Council Ex parte Powergen UK Plc QBD 17-Nov-1999
A planning permission had been granted requiring detailed proposals for the development to be delivered before a certain date. The applicant submitted proposals for part only of the site, requesting a variation to allow such a part proposal. The . .
Approved – Regina v Leicester City Council ex parte Powergen UK Limited CA 2000
. .
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: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.138604

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.

Judges:

Lang DBE J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2412 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 627, [2017] PTSR 1494

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 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.597451

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.

Citations:

Times 25-Sep-1998, [1998] 4 PLR 107

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: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.81600

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 reference to other documents was permitted, In that context, the application defined itself in terms of the earlier application, and must now be read on that basis, and the conditions not lifted remained in place. The court said it would be wise to set out conditions again in any new permission.

Judges:

Justice Sullivan

Citations:

Gazette 17-Oct-2002, [2002] EWHC 2174 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 73

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Ashford Borough Council ex parte Shepway District Council Admn 7-May-1998
The court set out the general rule in construing an outline planning permission which was clear, unambiguous and valid on its face. Regard could be had only to the planning permission itself and any conditions and the express reasons for them. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex Parte Slough Borough Council and Another CA 23-May-1995
A challenge to planning permission where the development had exceeded the application was to be made promptly. Where an area covered by the permission is not specified, it was not determined by the application. An unambiguous planning permission is . .

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: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.263509

Regina v Leicestershire City Council Ex parte Powergen UK Plc: QBD 17 Nov 1999

A planning permission had been granted requiring detailed proposals for the development to be delivered before a certain date. The applicant submitted proposals for part only of the site, requesting a variation to allow such a part proposal. The request was refused and the applicant challenged it by way of review. It was held that the site and the development were clearly intended to mean the same. No legitimate expectation had arisen.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Nov-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – 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 . .
See Also – Regina v Leicester City Council and Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc and Powergen UK Plc ex parte Safeway Stores Admn 18-Jan-1999
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Robert Hitchins Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Worcesteshire County Council and Others Admn 18-Nov-2014
A planning permission was granted with an agreement under section 106. A second permission was later granted. The court was now asked whether the section 106 agreement applied also to the second permission.
Held: As a matter of law, the . .
Appeal from – Regina v Leicester City Council ex parte Powergen UK Limited CA 2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.85365

Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 15 Feb 2001

The applicant sought permission to demolish two buildings and erect offices. One part of one building had permission for A2 office use, and on appeal, the inspector found that change of use had been implemented. The claimant asserted that this was only a fallback permission, and the inspector had to allow for the applicant’s ability to complete that change of use. It was held that the inspector could allow for the permission being a fallback use, but the change had been implemented by a bona fide lease. He had not suggested at the inquiry that the fallback use might not be implemented. The inspector had been under no obligation to make any express finding on the issue, and the appeal failed.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90566

Wainsfort Corporation v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 7 Dec 2000

The applicant sought permission to erect a boathouse in green belt land. The application was rejected and on appeal, the inspector again rejected the application after considering structure and local plan policies and the PPG2. On appeal, the court held that he was free to consider but distinguish a similar successful application relating to land nearby. It was within his discretion to distinguish the application. The inspector was entitled to find that an ‘essential’ requirement was one requiring a high standard. He was also entitled to reject the contention that the site was rural and that policy GB2 applied. He must still consider the openness of the green belt, which was a very general principle over and above such matters.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Dec-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90232

Regina v Wicks: CACD 19 Apr 1995

A defendant facing a charge of not complying with an enforcement notice may not challenge the validity of the notice upon which the enforcement proceedings are based by asserting it to be unreasonable.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jun-1995, Independent 11-May-1995, Times 19-Apr-1995

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 179 (1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Wicks HL 21-May-1997
Criminal proceedings, forming part of the general scheme of enforcement of planning control contained in Part VII of the Act, had been taken.
Held: The validity of a planning enforcement notice must be challenged in civil proceedings, not . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Wicks HL 21-May-1997
Criminal proceedings, forming part of the general scheme of enforcement of planning control contained in Part VII of the Act, had been taken.
Held: The validity of a planning enforcement notice must be challenged in civil proceedings, not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88314

Regina v Lincolnshire County Council Ex Parte Atkinson; Regina v Wealden District Council Ex Parte Wales and Others: QBD 3 Oct 1995

A local Authority must make proper welfare enquiries before seeking to remove unlawful campers. The new draconic legislation must be seen in its context. The commons of England provided lawful stopping places for people whose way of life was or had become nomadic. Enough common land survived enclosure to make this way of life still sustainable, but by the 1960 Act, local authorities were given power to close the commons to travellers. This they did with great energy, but made no use of the concomitant power given to them by s24 to open caravan sites to compensate for the closure of the commons. By the 1968 Act, Parliament legislated to make the s24 power a duty, resting in rural areas upon county councils rather than district councils (although the latter continued to possess the power to open sites). For the next quarter of a century there followed a history of non-compliance with the duties imposed by the Act of 1968, marked by a series of decisions of this court holding local authorities to be in breach of their statutory duty, to apparently little practical effect. The default powers vested in central government, to which the court was required to defer, were rarely if ever used. Sedley J: ‘Those considerations in the material paragraphs (of the Circular [on Gypsy Site Policy]) which are not statutory are considerations of common humanity, none of which can be properly ignored when dealing with one of the most fundamental human needs, the need for shelter with at least a modicum of security.’

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

Independent 03-Oct-1995, (1995) 8 Admin LR 529, [1997] JPL 65

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 77 78 79, Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 23, Caravan Sites Act 1968

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 – Coates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council CA 22-Oct-2004
The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – Regina v Kerrier District Council, ex parte Uzell Blythe and Sons 1996
The court referred to the decision of Sedley J in Atkinson adding: ‘As consideration of common humanity, they had to be equally applicable to decisions in relation to enforcement actions.’ . .
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 – Broxbourne Borough Council v Robb and Others QBD 27-Jun-2011
The Council applied for the committal of the defendant for an alleged breach of a without notice injunction. Notice of the injunction had been placed at the site, requiring nobody to move caravans onto the land.
Held: The application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government, Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87186

Regina v Aylesbury Vale District Council and Another, Ex Parte Chaplin and Others: QBD 23 Jul 1996

There was no common law duty to give reasons for a grant of permission after a refusal.

Citations:

Times 23-Jul-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Aylesbury Vale District Council and Another; Ex Parte Chaplin and Others CA 19-Aug-1997
A Local Authority need not give its reasons for granting a planning application, even where a previous and identical application had been refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86073

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 challenged the legality of the planning permission. It was open to a planning authority to reconsider the need for an environmental impact assessment and if necessary to change its mind, but it had no duty to reconsider that original opinion when it came to determine the planning application. A screening decision by the Secretary of State was determinative of the need for an assessment, but a positive view of the planning authority was so in the absence a decision otherwise by the Secretary. The authority therefore retained a discretion but no duty, to review the need for an assessment.

Judges:

Richards J

Citations:

Times 15-May-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, [2002] Env LR 10

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (1988 No 1199)

Citing:

See Also – Fernback; Berger; Jacobs; Strachan and Wong v London Borough of Harrow Admn 11-Apr-2000
. .

Cited by:

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

Planning, Environment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85964

Regina (Trustees of the Friends of the Lake District) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another etc: QBD 17 May 2001

The Secretary of State has the power to withdraw his decision to call in an application for planning permission under the section, where the application had seemed to raise planning issues of wider than local importance. Such a power was necessarily implied into the section, because otherwise he would be compelled to continue and make the determination despite changes in the circumstances which might make it inappropriate for him to do so.

Citations:

Times 17-May-2001

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 77

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86015

Ramsey and Another v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 15 May 2001

Land had been altered to allow for racing etc of off road vehicles. That was granted a lawful development certificate. No permission was required for activities taking place for 28 days or less in a year, and the applicants sought a certificate to use the land for off road activities within that limit. The request was refused, and the court confirmed the refusal. The use need not be looked at in isolation, and when the proposed use was so closely linked with such changes to the land, the use on 28 days in the year could not be seen in isolation. The physical changes were relevant when considering the character, including the issue of frequency, of the proposed use of the land.

Citations:

Times 15-May-2001

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (1995 No 419)

Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85662

Racepeak Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions: QBD 5 Jul 2001

The applicant sought permission to develop former stables as low cost housing. The inspector refused on the basis that the policies regarding preservation of racing facilities in the area had been incorporated within the relevant plans, and that these were the necessary starting point for his examination. An appeal failed. The inspector’s decision was a matter of his interpretation of policy, and this was within his remit. The requirements for preservation of horse-racing infrastructure could prevail over the need to provide low cost housing.

Citations:

Gazette 05-Jul-2001

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 54A

Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85635

R v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions: QBD 1 Dec 1999

A chapel had land used for parking. The chapel and land were sold to the appellant who used the chapel for the sale of cars. The use of the parking land grew, and it was claimed that he had changed the use of the land. An ancillary use is one subordinate to or linked functionally to a primary use, but the loss of an existing ancillary use was a matter of fact and degree. The inspector had correctly concluded that the right had been lost.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Dec-1999

Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85494

R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another, Ex Parte Richmondhsire District Council: QBD 17 Dec 1999

An application for permission to extend a caravan site was granted despite its size where the inspector had stated the interests to be protected and explained how they were met, but failed to allow for the structure plan which would allow only small scale proposals which would not harm the character and appearance etc of the local area. The development was not small scale, and the inspector had not considered properly the policies and their aims, and the permission was set aside.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Dec-1999

Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85502

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte O’Byrne: QBD 8 Jun 2000

A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector held that the green belt policy itself would not be affected, but a sale would impinge on the management of the park where the flat was situated. The refusal was correct, since it could not have been intended that the inspector should limit himself to consideration only of the green belt issues.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 118, Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte O’Byrne Admn 20-Aug-1999
It could be proper, when ordering for a third party to be joined in an action for judicial review, to order that the original party should not be responsible for the new party’s costs in any event. Such a power could be derived from the overriding . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – O’Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another CA 17-Apr-2001
A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The land was held under provisions in the 1938 Act making the sale of any part conditional on the consent of the respondent. The local authority . .
At first instance – Regina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions ex parte O’Byrne HL 14-Nov-2002
The applicant sought to exercise her right to buy a property she had occupied of her local authority. It was in the green belt, and the authority declined to sell it until they had obtained authorisation for the sale. The authority appealed an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Planning, Local Government

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85506

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another, Ex Parte Runnymede Borough Council: QBD 7 Jan 2000

The respondent built a coach house on the site of a former building with some history of residential use, but within the green belt. The question of whether it replaced an existing dwelling was one of fact and degree for the inspector. He had used the word ‘inequitable’ in justifying his decision, but this did not defeat his decision.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jan-2000

Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85503

Regina v North Somerset District Council Ex Parte Cadbury Garden Centre Ltd: QBD 10 Nov 1999

A garden centre challenged a series of planning decisions relating to adjoining land which changed its use to that of a garden centre. The challenge was successful insofar as the authority had failed to acknowledge that their decision amounted to permission to a change of the main use of the site.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Nov-1999

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v North Somerset District Council, ex parte Cadbury Garden Centre Ltd CA 27-Oct-2000
A permission had been granted for a garden centre with a limited sales area. The applicant had objected that the new building covered a greater area than allowed, and sought that the permission be quashed as invalid. The council appealed the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85431

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 an application would as in this case require an environmental impact assessment, a deemed consent would require such an assessment also.

Citations:

Times 28-Jan-2000

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
. .
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. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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, Environment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85243

Regina v Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council, Ex Parte Eminian: QBD 17 Aug 2000

When a householder applied for leave to construct a vehicular crossing over a footway to the carriageway, the highway authority was entitled to consider the effect such a way would have on the controlled parking zone, and could go beyond the elements listed in the section. Here the grant of the right would have reduced the number of parking spaces available within the zone, and this was enough reason to refuse consent.

Citations:

Times 17-Aug-2000

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 184(1)

Planning, Road Traffic

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85342

Regina v Derbyshire County Council Ex Parte Murray: QBD 19 Oct 2000

The applicant sought to challenge the grant of licences for extraction of clay and other minerals. He claimed that the authority had failed to give proper consideration to the guidance from the department, that they had failed to give proper weight to the objectives required, and that the environmental report was inadequate. It was held that the authority had indeed properly allowed for the report, that the authority having considered the objectives, it was not open to the court to look at what importance had been assigned to the different elements, and that the environmental assessment had been challenged too late in the proceedings.

Citations:

Gazette 19-Oct-2000, Times 08-Nov-2000

Planning, Environment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85221

Regina v Bolsover District Council, Ex Parte Paterson: QBD 6 Jul 2000

A coach house itself had a separate listing in the register from the house in the grounds of which it lay. The house owner obtained permission for work on a garage close to the coach house, but no notice was given to the owner of the coach house.
Held: The breach of the rules was made out. Each listed building which might be affected by the development was to be considered separately. The development might affect the coach house, and the owner should have had opportunity to present his arguments before the permission was granted.

Citations:

Gazette 06-Jul-2000

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (1995 No 419)

Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85129

Postermobile Plc v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council: QBD 8 Jun 2000

A builder was convicted after having a hoarding erected which announced forthcoming building works, but where such works were not in fact begun within the three month rule. The conviction was upheld, since the regulations were quite clear. The rule was a relaxation, and it was for those taking advantage of that relaxation to bring themselves within it.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jun-2000

Planning, Construction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84817

Porter v Snowdonia National Park: QBD 13 Feb 2000

The applicant had operated a caravan and camping site for seven years. He was allowed three caravans within the curtilage of his farmhouse, but argued for an additional fourth under the General Permitted Development Order. Held the fourth caravan was in excess, and therefore the three remaining caravans also failed to comply, and the respondent had properly been convicted of failing to comply with the enforcement notice.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Feb-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84806

O’Brien v Croydon London Borough Council: QBD 27 Jul 1998

A notice requiring discontinuance of an advertisement should be served on the company whose products were being advertised as the advertiser as well as the owner of the site. Failure to do so did not however vitiate prosecution where no prejudice was suffered.

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-1998

Statutes:

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

Planning, Media

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84412

Lothian Borders and Angus Co-Operative Society Ltd v Scottish Borders Council: OHCS 10 Mar 1999

An allegation attacking a planning decision on the basis that the local authority acted through bias because it received a benefit from the decision was ill-founded where it could be shown that the decision made available substantial needed benefit.

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-1999

Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83215

Kingsley v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 23 Nov 2000

The applicant owned land in the green belt. The local authority set out a structure plan proposing 5,000 homes in the green belt. The applicant sought amendments to increase the number saying there was insufficient urban land. An examination-in-public panel proposed the original number and the local authority confirmed it. The applicant sought a review on the basis that the council did not deal with the fundamentals of the report, and the explanatory memorandum had strayed into making policy. The authority had got to the fundamentals right, but had, indeed, become too detailed in its memorandum and therefore been making policy. Such policy elements were struck out, but the remainder stood.

Citations:

Gazette 23-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 287 32, Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1991

Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82793

JS Bloor (Measham) Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions: QBD 12 Jul 2001

The applicant sought permission to build houses. The application was not determined, and the applicant took it to an inquiry. The Authority objected to the extent of the development, suggesting that two houses only was appropriate. Other objectors suggested that no development should be allowed under policies H14 and GE4. The inspector’s refusal was overturned on the basis that he had not explained whether he ruled out any development at all, and had failed to differentiate between the two sets of objections.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Jul-2001

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 78

Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82641

Islington London Borough Council v Michaelides: QBD 21 Jun 2001

The council brought proceedings alleging breach of a planning notice. The defendant applied for a lawful development certificate, and upon it being granted the council withdrew the proceedings. Later it came to the conclusion that the defendant had misrepresented the extent of the use, and there were complaints about the noise. They withdrew the certificate, and sought to issue new proceedings, but based on the same situation. The defendant pled autrefois acquit. It was held that the prosecution could proceed. No adjudication on the merits had been made, and the withdrawal was merely administrative. The plea of autrefois acquit was not made out.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Jun-2001

Planning, Crime

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82434

Hertsmere Borough Council v Reid Estates Ltd: QBD 22 Jun 2000

The authority gave permission for a road-side sign on condition that it was kept clean and tidy. They later issued a notice requiring its removal, complaining that it had become overgrown and partly obscured. The sign and site were tidied, but the authority prosecuted. They appealed the magistrates dismissal of the information. On appeal the question was as to the condition of the notice at the time it was served, not whether it had been remedied. The permission had accordingly lapsed.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, Town and Country Planning Act 1990 224

Planning

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81347

Hambleton District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 30 Nov 2000

The appellant challenged the decision of a planning inspector considering an enforcement notice with regard to the siting of a residential caravan on land that other suitable accommodation was not available in the area. The only evidence was a site visit. That visit could not support such a finding. A second decision to vary an enforcement notice went beyond the inspectors powers which were limited to considering whether the steps required by the notice were necessary to alleviate the planning breach. He could not consider injury to amenity.

Citations:

Gazette 30-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174(2)

Planning

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81183

Gillingham Borough Council v Cock: QBD 1 Mar 1993

Where the defendant was accused of affixing posters to lampposts contrary to the Act, the defence under the section was available to him only if he could show that he had no knowledge or had not consented to the posters being displayed in this manner. The knowledge and consent were disjunctive, and he might still have a defence if he knew of the act but did not consent to it.

Citations:

Ind Summary 01-Mar-1993

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1989 5, Town and Country Planning Act 1990 224(5)

Planning, Crime

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80836

Geall v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: LT 28 Oct 1998

In a long standing planning dispute the inspector refused an adjournment to allow further evidence to be gathered in rebuttal of new evidence brought on day of hearing. The evidence could have been brought knowing the council’s published policies.

Citations:

Gazette 28-Oct-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80779

Forte Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 14 Apr 2000

An inspector refused the applicant’s appeal after refusal of permission for Travelodge, finding that the proposed development was not an employment use within the structure plan and the local plan, but it did impact on the supply of land for business industry and warehousing, and the need for this type of development did not outweigh other planning considerations. A further appeal was rejected. The inspector had properly concluded that the development would contravene the policies, and explained how such a development would be harmful.

Citations:

Gazette 14-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Planning

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80641

Foxlow Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 15 Dec 2000

The owner of a listed building removed a chimney stack and replaced it. Compliance with current building regulations would not have been able to serve the five fires served by the old stack. An enforcement notice was issued and confirmed by the inspector requiring the restoration of the initial stack. The council’s decision to under-enforce the restoration was acceptable. They owners’ appeal to the court was dismissed. The enforcement notice had been clear in what it required, and it had been correctly seen as an exercise in restoration. He was aware of the decision by the authority. He had taken into account everything that he should have, and nothing that he shouldn’t.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Dec-2000

Planning

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80654

Fareham Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Others: QBD 21 Jun 2001

The landowners had a mobile home with a certificate of lawfulness, along with some outbuildings, and a fall back permission for a permanent caravan on countryside land. He sought permission to replace the mobile home with a dwelling house, removing some of the outbuildings. On appeal from authority’s refusal the inspector granted permission, on the basis that development was replacing an ‘existing permanent dwelling’. The authority appealed. On appeal the court held that it was within the inspector’s reasonable interpretation, but he was mistaken as to the plans for the outhouses, and it was not possible to say his decision had not been effected. The decision was quashed and remitted to the Secretary of State.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Jun-2001

Planning

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80471

Faradene Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and An: QBD 2 Sep 1999

Where a permission was sought extending an existing development, and a plan due to be finalised acknowledged that the site should continue with that use, it could not be said that the grant of a permission would prejudice the outcome of the public enquiry and it was wrong to delay the application until after the plan was so finalised.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1999

Planning

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80466

Boyle v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and An: QBD 21 Apr 1999

The only legitimate expectation of a party awaiting determination of an application for permission was that current policies would be applied. An applicant awaiting a decision on permanent dwelling for agricultural land had no right to continue temporary home.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Apr-1999

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Planning

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.78529

Chartwell Land Development Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and An: QBD 28 Apr 1999

After outline permission had been granted, certain matters were reserved, on detailed plans the inspector sought to impose an alteration. On appeal, it was held that the inspector had acted without expert evidence on the point and so wrongly.

Citations:

Gazette 28-Apr-1999

Planning

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.78997

A Fairhurst and Son v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 13 Oct 1999

A compulsory purchase order was sought for land which would, by being taken, seriously damage the operation of a business on nearby land. The Secretary of State granted the order on appeal. His order was upheld because he appeared to have applied the appropriate statutory tests, and carried out the correct balancing exercises.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Oct-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.77577

Paramaguru v London Borough of Ealing: Admn 27 Feb 2018

Appeal by case stated against a preliminary ruling made by justices that children up to the age of 18 are ‘residents’ within the meaning of Class C4 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987.

Judges:

Supperstone J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 373 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 123

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605700

Beau Songe Development Ltd v The United Basalt Products Ltd and Another: PC 22 Jan 2018

Mauritius – The Board considered the legal effect, as it affects the appellant’s proposed development, of a so-called ‘1km buffer-zone’ shown in a map forming part of an approved Outline Scheme under the Town and Country Planning Act 1954

Judges:

Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs

Citations:

[2018] UKPC 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Planning

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605688

Mynnydd Y Gwynt Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy: CA 22 Feb 2018

Appeal arising from a challenge to the refusal of planning consent for the construction of an onshore wind farm.

Judges:

Lewison, Floyd, Peter Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 231, [2018] WLR(D) 117

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Utilities

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605628

Hargrave House Ltd and Chaim Reiner v Highbury Corner Magistrates Court and Another: Admn 16 Feb 2018

Application for judicial review concerning the construction of the word ‘repair’ in an enforcement order issued by a planning authority against a developer who was in breach of planning regulations.

Judges:

Cheema-Grubb J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 279 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605603

Medway Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 23 Mar 2016

The court considered an application by a developer under section 106BA to modify the requirement so that a payment for the provision of affordable housing is deleted, and its succeeding in an appeal to the Defendant Secretary of State under section 106BC of the Act.

Judges:

Gilbart J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 644 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 106

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.561486

Sullivan v Warwick District Council and others: QBD 8 Apr 2003

Permission was sought to demolish part of a listed building, the second purpose built hotel in England.
Held: When considering whether an alteration constituted the demolition of a ‘significant part’ of a building, under PPG 15 (1994) para 3.15A, considerations should be addressed to its condition, the costs of maintenance in the light of the importance of the building, and all other circumstances.

Judges:

Pitchford J

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.183827