Category: Planning

Arnold and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: CA 31 Mar 2017

‘Did an inspector determining appeals against an enforcement notice under section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 fail lawfully to consider ‘alternatives’ to the development against which the enforcement action had been taken?’

Judges:

David, Lindblom LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 231

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581336

Skipton Properties Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Craven District Council: Admn 20 Mar 2017

Application for judicial review to challenges a to adopt a document entitled ‘Negotiating Affordable Housing Contributions August 2016’

Judges:

Jay J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 534 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581100

Dartford Borough Council v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: CA 14 Mar 2017

The sole issue on this appeal was the meaning of ‘previously developed land’ (often called ‘brownfield land’) as defined by the glossary forming part of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 141, [2017] WLR(D) 181

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580892

Zins, Regina (on The Application of) v East Suffolk Council: Admn 27 Oct 2020

The Claimant challenged the lawfulness of a grant of conditional planning permission to PGL by East Suffolk Council for: ‘Creation of a lake for recreational activities such as raft building and canoeing, including excavation the re-use of excavated materials onsite, and the re-organisation of consented Activity Structures within the Bawdsey Manor Estate’.

Judges:

James Strachan QC

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 2850 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.655217

Mouchell Superannuation Fund Trustees and another v Oxfordshire County Council: CA 1992

The court has jurisdiction to grant a declaration, in a private law action, that a planning condition is invalid.

Citations:

[1992] 1 PLR 97

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Planning, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.228576

Brown v London Borough of Ealing and Queens Park Rangers Holding Ltd: Admn 9 Mar 2017

Application for judicial review of a planning permission granted by the defendant to the interested party following the defendant’s planning committee’s resolution to grant the application

Judges:

Dove J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 467 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579631

Swan Quay Llp, Regina (on The Application of) v Swale Borough Council: Admn 27 Jan 2017

Claim for judicial review of the defendant’s decision to hold a referendum in respect of the Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan

Judges:

Dove J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 420 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Planning

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579627

Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden: ECHR 23 Sep 1982

Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim

(Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years.
Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct rules: the first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is general and enunciates the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the first paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. The Court further observed that, before inquiring whether the first general rule has been complied with, it must determine whether the last two are applicable. The three rules are not distinct in the sense of being unconnected. The second and third are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule.
The search for the striking of a fair balance ‘between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights’ is inherent in the whole of the Convention.
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – Violation of P1-1; Violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 17+P1-1, 18+P1-1 and 13; Just satisfaction reserved.

Judges:

Wiarda, Zekia, Cremona, Vilhjalsson

Citations:

7152/75, [1983] 5 EHRR 35, [1982] ECHR 5, 7151/75

Links:

Worldlii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights P1-1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See also – Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 18-Dec-1984
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
An interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. This balance is . .
See also – Sporrong And Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 18-Dec-1984
(Article 50) . .

Cited by:

Cited – James and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
See also – Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 18-Dec-1984
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
An interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. This balance is . .
Cited – Regina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance HL 15-May-2003
The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: . .
Cited – Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jul-2001
Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation.
Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human . .
Distinguished – Allan Jacobsson v Sweden ECHR 25-Oct-1989
‘According to the Court’s case law, this provision comprises three distinct rules. The first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property; the . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Weir and others v Secretary of State for Transport and Another ChD 14-Oct-2005
The claimants were shareholders in Railtrack. They complained that the respondent had abused his position to place the company into receivership so as to avoid paying them compensation on a repurchase of the shares. Mr Byers was accused of ‘targeted . .
Cited – Baiai and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 30-Jul-2008
In order to prevent marriages of convenience in the UK the Secretary of State introduced a scheme under which certain persons subject to immigration control required her written permission to marry and would not receive it unless they were present . .
Cited – Trent Strategic Health Authority v Jain and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants’ nursing home business had been effectively destroyed by the actions of the Authority which had applied to revoke their licence without them being given notice and opportunity to reply. They succeeded on appeal, but the business was by . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v HM Treasury QBD 11-Jun-2010
The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of . .
Cited – Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Cited – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
Cited – Salvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
Cited – Depalle v France ECHR 29-Mar-2010
Grand Chamber
The Court summarised the effect of Sporrong: ‘The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, Article 1 of Protocol No 1, which guarantees in substance the right of property, comprises three distinct rules (see, inter alia, . .
Cited – Cusack v London Borough of Harrow SC 19-Jun-2013
The landowner practised from property in Harrow. The former garden had now for many years been used as a forecourt open to the highway, for parking cars of staff and clients. Cars crossed the footpath to gain access, and backing out into the road . .
Cited – DA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-May-2019
Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory.
Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Land, Planning

Leading Case

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.164907

Formby Parish Council v Sefton Council: Admn 17 Jan 2022

The claimant parish council seeks judicial review of the decision of the defendant planning authority to grant planning permission for a development at Formby, Liverpool being a ‘change of use of the first floor involving the erection of extensions at the rear to form two self-contained flats involving alterations to the elevations’.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Stephen Davies
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Citations:

[2022] EWHC 73 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.671311

King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment: 1995

David Keene QC said: ‘I note that whereas s171B(1) is confined to cases where the breach consists of the carrying out of operations without planning permission, that is to say one form of development, s. 171B(2) seems to apply to any breach of planning control consisting in the change of use of a building to a single dwelling house. Unlike subsection (1), subsection (2) does not seem to be limited to cases where the breach arises because there is no planning permission. On the face of it, therefore, subsection (2) would seem to be wide enough to embrace breaches of planning control arising by way of breach of condition as well as wholly unpermitted changes to a single dwelling house. That would also be consistent with a legislative intention to protect occupiers of such dwellings after four years of breach, whatever the nature of the breach.’

Judges:

David Keene QC

Citations:

[1995] JPL 730

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Acr 1990 171B(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – First Secretary of State v Arun District Council and Another CA 10-Aug-2006
The land-owner had received planning permission to construct an extension to her home subject to a condition that it could be occupied only by a dependant relative. In 1996, she let it to students in breach of the condition. In 1996, te council took . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.245084

Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Highways England and Another: Admn 10 Jun 2021

The claimant seeks to quash the development consent order relating to the proposed new road scheme for the A303 at Stonehenge which was granted by the defendant under the Planning Act 2008 to the applicant, Highways England

Judges:

Mr Justice Holgate

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 1642 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.663450

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v Tanna: CA 10 Feb 2017

The council appealed against a finding that it had not validly served a notice on the respondent under section 215 of the 1990 Act.

Judges:

Arden, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 50, [2017] WLR(D) 91

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 215 329, Local Government Act 1972 233

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.574301

London Borough of Hillingdon and Others v The Secretary of State for Transport and Others: Admn 30 Jan 2017

Judicial review to challenge a decision of the Secretary of State for Transport which selected for inclusion in a draft National Policy Statement (‘NPS’) a proposal for a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 121 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 54

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Planning Act 2008

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Transport

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573917

TW Logistics Ltd v Essex County Council and Another: ChD 8 Feb 2017

The court was asked whether an area of land forming part of the Port of Mistley in Essex should remain registered as a town or village green pursuant to the Commons Act 2006, or whether the TVG register should be rectified by the de-registration in whole or in part of the Land by the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction under section 14 of the Commons Registration Act 1965

Judges:

Barling j

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 185 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Commons Registration Act 1965 14, Commons Act 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Land

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573913

Heath and Hampstead Society, Regina (on the Application of) v Camden: Admn 3 Apr 2007

The claimant sought the quashing of a planning permission for the demolition of property adjacent to Hampstead Heath pond.
Held: The planning authority’s decision that the replacement dwelling was not ‘materially larger’ than its predecessor, within the meaning of a policy, was vitiated by its failure to understand the policy correctly. In its context, the phrase ‘materially larger’ referred to the size of the new building compared with its predecessor, rather than requiring a broader comparison of their relative impact, as the planning authority had supposed.

Sullivan J
[2007] EWHC 977 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council SC 21-Mar-2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.251574

Friends of The Earth Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v North Yorkshire County Council and Another: Admn 20 Dec 2016

Claim for judicial review of a decision by the defendant council to grant planning permission for hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’ on a site

Lang DBE J
[2016] EWHC 3303 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572716

O’Flynn v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 17 Nov 2016

The Claimant applied under section 288 of the TCPA 1990 to quash the decision of the First Defendant, made on his behalf by an Inspector, in which he dismissed the Claimant’s appeal from the Second Defendant’s refusal to grant him a certificate of lawful existing use or development, pursuant to section 191 TCPA 1990.

Lang DBE J
[2016] EWHC 2894 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 191
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571958

The Knightland Foundation, Regina v: CACD 26 Jul 2018

The court considered the practice on the giving of the acquittal undertaking. Hallett LJ said that it would be best practice to give the information in open court because: (a) that enables the judge to keep control over the proceedings, including directions if a jury is empanelled and expedition; (b) it provides openness and clarity, in particular for the defendant; (c) emails can get misdirected; (d) although CPR 5.1 encourages electronic filing of applications and notices, CPR 4.11 provides electronic service received after 14.30 is deemed service the next day. adding:
‘ However, it does not follow from the fact that giving notice in open court is best practice that we have no jurisdiction. The question remains – does a prosecutor lose his or her right to apply for leave to appeal by failing to give notice in open court?’

Hallett DBE LJ
[2018] EWCA Crim 1860
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – PY, Regina v CACD 22-Jan-2019
Police ‘lawful use’ of dog must be police work
The prosecutor wished to appeal from the acquittal of a police officer, whose police dog, while being exercised, attacked a runner causing injury. The judge had accepted the defence, since the dog required exercise, the officer was using the dog for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Planning

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.624147

Tarmac Heavy Building Materials UK Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions: QBD 14 Jul 1999

A condition requiring the removal of plant and re-instatement of a site after completion of extraction of minerals from it was not properly imposed since the operation of the plant was not necessarily linked to the continuation of the quarrying activities. The court quashed a decision contained in an inspector’s decision letter.

Jackson J
Gazette 14-Jul-1999, (1999) 79 PandCR 260
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Stancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority CA 17-Jun-2005
In 1952, the Minister wrote a leter confirming the planning permissions for four quarries now owned by the claimants. In 1996, two of the quarries were separately included in a list of dormant sites, and in 19999 the applicant began to apply for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.89720

South Oxfordshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another: QBD 13 Jan 2000

Extensive grounds of a house had permissions subject to a condition that they should not be used for landing etc of helicopters. For several years the owner flew helicopters from the property relying upon provisions allowing temporary use. His application for permanent permission was refused. The appeal failed because the inspector had properly assessed the factors and concluded the use would not be incidental to the residential use. New arguments might be raised on appeal, but not always and not in this case.

Gazette 13-Jan-2000
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Newsmith Stainless Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions Admn 1-Feb-2001
Application was made to quash an inspector’s decision.
Held: An inspector’s decision was not to be challenged as to its facts. In any case where the expert tribunal is the fact finding body the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness or . .
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: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.89416

St George Developments Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Environment and Another: QBD 31 Oct 1994

The company already had outline permission for a residential development at Kew Gardens. Two schemes were submitted. On one, the council failed to reach a timely determination, and it refused the other. The developers appealed to the Secretary of State.
Held: The appeal failed. Section 54A applied also to an appeal against refusal of matters reserved, and in considering an appeal, the Secretary had himself to apply both section 54A and the development plan as a material consideration. His decision was a determination under the Planning Acts.

Nigel McLeod QC
Ind Summary 31-Oct-1994, [1994] 3 PLR 33
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 54A
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.89467