Category: Planning

Smech Properties Ltd v Runnymede Borough Council and Another: CA 3 Feb 2016

Appeal against dismissal of a claim by the appellant for judicial review of a planning permission granted by the first respondent for mixed use development on part of a former Defence Evaluation and Research Agency site. The appellant is the owner of land close to the Site. The second respondents are joint venture partners who own and wish to develop the Site.

Tomlinson, Briggs, Sales LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 42
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559508

The John Muir Trust, Re Judicial Review: SCS 4 Dec 2015

Judicial Review of a Decision of the Scottish Ministers dated 6th June, 2014 to grant consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Scottish and Southern Energy Renewables for the erection of 67 wind turbines at Stronelairg, Garrogie Estate, Whitebridge, Fort Augustus together with deemed planning permission under Section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

[2015] ScotCS CSOH – 163
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
Scotland

Planning

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558167

Seiont, Gwyrfai and Llyfni Anglers’ Society, Regina (on The Application of) v Natural Resources Wales and Others: Admn 17 Dec 2015

The Court was asked whether for the purposes of the Environmental Liability Directive (EU Directive 2004/35/EC), ‘environmental damage’ includes the prevention or deceleration of recovery from an existing, already-damaged environmental state; or whether it is restricted to a deterioration from an existing state.

Hickinbottom J
[2015] EWHC 3578 (Admin)
Bailii
Directive 2004/35/EC
England and Wales

Planning, European, Environment

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557153

Mulvenna and Smith v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 4 Dec 2015

The court was asked: ‘what are the consequences for a decision which has been made on the back of an unlawful decision? In the case of these claimants from the Traveller and Gypsy community, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (‘the Secretary of State’) made directions to recover (or call in) their planning appeals so that he could determine them himself. Their local planning authorities had refused to grant them planning permission to live on green belt land. The Secretary of State then made determinations in the case of both claimants, Ms Bernadette Mulvenna and Mr Elias Smith, dismissing their appeals.’

Cranston J
[2015] EWHC 3494 (Admin)
Bailii

Planning, Administrative

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556473

Jedwell v DH and Another: CA 2 Dec 2015

Challenge to grant of planning permission for wind turbines on the basis that the decision that no environmental impact assessment report was required was itself inadequate.
Held: Allowed in part and remitted.

Moore-Bick VP CA, Lewison, Kitchin LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1232, [2015] WLR(D) 493
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Planning, Environment

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556266

Rights: Community: Action, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government: CA 20 Dec 2021

Was it lawful for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the respondent here, to reform the planning legislation in England by making statutory instruments to adjust ‘permitted development’ rights and to remove certain changes of use from the scope of development control, without undertaking a strategic environmental assessment under Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (‘the SEA Directive’) and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (‘the SEA regulations’)? That is the basic question in this case. The answer to it, in my view, is that the Secretary of State did not act unlawfully.

Sir Keith Lindblom,
(Senior President of Tribunals),
Lord Justice Coulson,
And,
Lord Justice Birss
[2021] EWCA Civ 1954
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning, Environment

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.670639

Wiltshire Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: CA 15 Sep 2015

Application by Wiltshire Council for permission to appeal against an order of Patterson J by which she declared that a decision of the Secretary of State (the first respondent to the present application) allowing a planning appeal by a number of developers (the second to fourth respondents) was unlawful but she declined to quash the decision. The essence of the application to this court is that the judge should have granted a quashing order, not a declaration.

Richards LJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1068
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554771

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 as defined by Section 290(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, or in forestry and the dependants (which shall be taken to include a widow or widower) of such persons.’ The farm was run by Mrs S, but her husband had a quite independent business which in practice supported the farm. The appellants contended that Mr Shortt and the children were not ‘dependants’ of Mrs Shortt within the meaning of the condition and that their occupation of the dwelling had been at all material times in breach of the condition, with a consequence that they were immune from enforcement action.
Held: The landowners appeal failed. The condition was valid. Planning Policy Guidance 7 required a strict approach towards the grant of planning permission for agricultural and forestry dwellings. The purpose of granting planning permission subject to an agricultural occupancy condition for dwellings in the countryside is to provide accommodation that is needed for an agricultural worker. It is reasonably to be expected, however, that an agricultural worker with a family will want to live in such accommodation with his or her family; and the obvious purpose of the inclusion of dependants within the condition is to permit them to do just that. There is no obvious reason why this condition should be read as applying only where the agricultural worker provides financial support to the family members living with him or her. Indeed, it would be very surprising if the intention were to permit an agricultural worker to have family members living with him or her only so long as the agricultural business was profitable, or to require family finances to be organised in such a way as to channel profits from the agricultural business into meeting the family’s ordinary living expenses rather than, for example, allowing them to be reinvested in the agricultural business while relying on the spouse’s income to meet the living expenses.

Richards, Sales LJJ, Body J
[2015] EWCA Civ 1192
Bailii
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 . .
Appeal from – Shortt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 22-Jul-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Agriculture

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554786

Tarmac Aggregates Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another: CA 17 Nov 2015

Appeal from a decision dismissing an application by Tarmac for judicial review of a decision by an Inspector in turn dismissing an appeal by Tarmac against a refusal by the Interested Party, the Environment Agency, to grant a standard rules environmental permit.

McFarlane, Floyd LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1149
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554675

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Selby District Council: CA 5 Nov 2015

Challenge to the adoption of a development plan document under the relevant provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, on the ground that the local planning authority’s duty under section 33A(1) of the 2004 Act – the so-called ‘duty to co-operate’ – was engaged but not complied with.

Moore-Bick, Sales LJJ, Lindblom J
[2015] EWCA Civ 1107
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554278

Whitcher v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 28 Oct 2015

The claimant, a Romany Gypsy, applied for planning permission for the change of use of land which he owned at Landford, Salisbury, to a single pitch Gypsy site for one mobile home and one touring caravan. That application was refused by the second defendant. The claimant appealed and his appeal was allowed.

Dove J
[2015] EWHC 3001 (Admin)
Bailii

Planning

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554196

Whitby v Secretary of State for Transport Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 14 Oct 2015

‘The Claimant brings three related claims challenging the decision to construct the Ordsall Chord – a proposed 340m elevated chord railway in the Ordsall area of Greater Manchester – which will link the three main stations in Manchester, and improve rail capacity. The challenge arises from the choice of route, which will result in substantial harm to a collection of listed heritage assets associated with the historic development of the railways in the 19th century.’

Land DBE J
[2015] EWHC 2804 (Admin)
Bailii

Planning, Transport

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553446

Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 7 Oct 2015

The Claimant applied for an order quashing the decision of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in which he dismissed the Claimant’s appeal against the refusal of planning permission by East Dorset Council.

Lang DBE J
[2015] EWHC 2728 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553245

Villages Action Group and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 7 Oct 2015

The Claimants applied for an order quashing the decision of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in which he allowed the Third Defendant’s appeal against the refusal of planning permission by Arun District Council for a residential development at a site.

Lang DBE J
[2015] EWHC 2729 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553246

Tescan Ltd v Cornwall Council: UTLC 3 Nov 2014

UTLC COMPENSATION – planning permission – certificate of appropriate alternative development – section 17 application for ‘full open market residential’ – section 18 appeal against a nil certificate – development plan – imminent revocation of saved structure plan policies at relevant valuation date – emerging local plan policies – material considerations – National Planning Policy Framework – appeal allowed – sections 14, 17 and 18 of Land Compensation Act 1961

[2014] UKUT 408 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552346

Portland Stone Firms Ltd and Another v Dorset County Council: UTLC 4 Dec 2014

UTLC COMPENSATION – preliminary issues – Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ss. 97 and 107 – basis for calculation of compensation – 1951 planning permission for mining on Portland – permission becoming subject to procedure for the review of old mineral planning permissions (ROMP) under Environment Act 1995 Sched. 13 – designation of part of site as a Special Area of Conservation under Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 – in consequence compensating authority making a modification order under s. 97 of 1990 Act – whether compensation to be assessed taking into account fact that at the valuation date planning permission already subject to ROMP procedures

[2014] UKUT 527 (LC)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 97
England and Wales

Land, Planning

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552354

Dimos Kropias Attikis v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Energias kai Klimatikis Allagis: ECJ 10 Sep 2015

Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Protection regime in respect of the Mount Hymettus area – Modification procedure – Applicability of the directive – Master plan and environmental protection programme for the greater Athens area

C-473/14, [2015] EUECJ C-473/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:582
Bailii
Directive 2001/42/EC
European

Environment, Planning

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.552172

Handoll and Suddick v Warner Goodman and Streat (a firm) and Others: CA 9 Dec 1994

The purchasers of land on which a bungalow had been erected wanted to discover, by way of a preliminary issue in an action against the vendor, whether a condition attached to planning permission would enforceable against them. A planning permission had been granted subject to a condition of agricultural occupancy. However, the bungalow had been erected a short distance outside the area for which planning permission had been granted, and was thus in breach of planning control.
Held: Where a development does not comply in a material respect, or to a material extent, with the permission granted, a condition attached to that permission cannot apply to the unauthorised development.
The Council had argued that its inability to enforce the planning control because of the passage of time could not affect the occupancy and the condition attached to it, looking for support to the decision in Kerrier. Overruling Kerrier, the court decided that A planning authority cannot succeed in an action for breach of condition unless the development to which it was attached by the planning permission has actually been carried out. The reasoning of the Court of Appeal was that if a development has been carried out other than in accordance with the planning permission granted, it is unauthorised and unlawful, and therefore the conditions attached to the permission can have no effect upon it. It would be open to the planning authority to serve an enforcement notice to prevent any use of the unauthorised development (not just a use which breached the condition). However once the time for enforcement had passed, the planning authority would be unable to enforce either the original permission or any conditions attached to it.

McGowan, Peter Gibson LJJ, Sir John May
(1995) 70 PandCR 627, [1994] EWCA Civ 42, [1995] 1 EGLR 173, [1994] NPC 158, [1995] 25 EG 157
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Overruled – Kerrier District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 1981
A building had been constructed on a site, but failed to comply with the permission granted because the basement did not have planning approval. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.552020

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.

Cranston J
[2015] EWHC 2327 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551044