Category: Planning

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

Regina v Newbury District Council ex parte Blackwell: Admn 29 Oct 1997

Where members of a planning committee reject their planning officers’ advice ‘there must be a rational and discernable basis for doing so’.

Potts J
[1997] EWHC Admin 936, [1998] JPL 680
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd Admn 22-Aug-2013
The campaign company sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent granting permission to develop nearby land as a golf course.
Held: The application succeeded. The Secretary of State in preserving the effect of certain policies had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137881

West Berkshire District Council Reading Borough Council v Department for Communities and Local Government: Admn 31 Jul 2015

The Claimants, West Berkshire and Reading Borough Councils sought to challenge decisions of the Secretary of State: (i) to make alterations to national policy in respect of planning obligations for affordable housing and social infrastructure contributions by way of a Written Ministerial Statement in the House of Commons (HCWS50); and (ii) to maintain those policy changes following the completion of an Equalities Impact Assessment

Holgate J
[2015] EWHC 2222 (Admin), [2016] PTSR 215, [2015] WLR(D) 367
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550955

London Borough of Wandsworth v Mills and Allen Ltd and Another: Admn 5 Sep 1997

The Council sought orders to restrain the defendants from using certain land for the display of advertisements.

Moriarty QC
[1997] EWHC Admin 800
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B, Local Government Act 1972 222, Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137745

Regina and North Lincolnshire Council ex parte Horticultural and Garden Products Sales (Humberside) Limited: Admn 31 Jul 1997

The applicant extracted peat from land in Doncaster. Planning permission had been granted in 1951. After a boundary change in 1994 part of the site remained in Doncaster and part came within the boundaries of Humberside which was replaced by the respondent council in April 1996. Doncaster published its list of mineral sites in January 1996 which included the land in question and was thought to relate to the whole of the site. Humberside also published its list in January 1996 with a notice requiring applications under paragraph 6 to remedy any omissions to be made within three months. The Humberside list did not include any part of the land and no application was made to remedy the omission. Accordingly, by virtue of paragraphs 9 and 12 of schedule 13 the permission ceased to have effect in relation to that part of the land which fell within Humberside unless the Humberside list could be amended. The council considered that it had no power to amend the list and the applicant therefore brought proceedings for judicial review.
Held: Schedule 13 was clear and the council had no discretion to correct errors in the list otherwise than in accordance with paragraph 6. Accordingly the permission relating to the land falling within Humberside had lapsed.

Lightman J
[1997] EWHC Admin 751, (1997) 76 P and CR 363
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Stancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority QBD 22-Jun-2004
The claimants sought a declaration. Planning permission had been confirmed for four mineral extraction sites by letter in 1952. In 1996, two were listed as now being dormant. The claimant said the letter of 1952 created on single planning permision . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137696

Withers v The Secretary of State for The Environment, The North Somerset District Council: Admn 9 Sep 1997

The appellants appealed a refusal of an inspector to set aside an enforcement notice with regard to the alteration of use of an outbuilding to a residence. He asserted that no enforcement action having been taken for four years, the enforcement could not proceed. There had been use over a longer period, but there had been a break. In fact, the Inspector had, too gently, expressed his disbelief of the appellant’s evidence. There was no use for the period asserted and the appeal failed.

[1997] EWHC Admin 803
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174(2), 171B(2)
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137748

Tesco Stores Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Forest of Dean District Council: CA 22 Jul 2015

Appeal against an Order dismissing the Appellant’s claim for judicial review of the Respondent’s grant of planning permission for the development of a site South of Cambourne Place, Lydney, for: ‘Demolition of existing finishing shop and erection of new finishing shop, offices with car parking and associated works. Erection of retail store of 3827 sq. m. gross internal floor area (Class A1), petrol filling station, car parking, service areas and associated development. Erection of 4 No. B1 units and 4 No. B1/B8 units.’

Sullivan, Sharp LJJ, Sir Colin Rimer
[2015] EWCA Civ 800
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550500

Miaris v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 17 Jul 2015

The grant of a permission to appeal on a second occasion was not to be quashed under the 1999 Act.

John Howell QC HHJ
[2015] EWHC 2094 (Admin), [2015] WLR(D) 319, [2015] 1 WLR 4333
Bailii, WLRD
Access to Justice Act 1999 55(1), Town and Country Planning Act 1990 289(6)

Planning, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550380

IM Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield District Council and Others: Admn 20 Jul 2015

Application to quash local plan alleging: ‘ (1) the planning inspector appointed to conduct the examination into the local plan erred in failing to determine whether the Council’s sustainability appraisal complied with the relevant legal and procedural requirements; (2) the sustainability appraisal and the process of consideration of alternatives by the Council and the planning inspector were legally flawed and unfair; (3) the planning inspector adopted the wrong approach when considering whether it was appropriate to alter the green belt boundaries by releasing the Deanslade Farm and Cricket Lane sites for housing; and (4) the Council had no power to adopt the local plan with the main modifications proposed in respect of the green belt sites, since this departed fundamentally from the spatial strategy it originally set out. ‘

Cranston J
[2015] EWHC 2077 (Admin), [2015] WLR(D) 328
Bailii, WLRD
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 113(3)
England and Wales

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550379

Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another: SC 22 Jul 2015

‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a member of the Ryburgh Village Action Group. The proposal involved the erection of two silos for 3,000 tons of barley, and the construction of a lorry park with wash bay and ancillary facilities, on a site close to the River Wensum. Permission was granted by the council, following consultation with the relevant statutory bodies, notably Natural England (NE) and the Environment Agency (EA), on 13 September 2011.’
Held: The appeal was dismissed. It is intrinsic to the scheme of the EIA Directive and the Regulations that the classification of the proposal is governed by the characteristics and effects of the proposal as presented to the authority, not by reference to steps subsequently taken to address those effects. Though this was a clear defect, that failure did not in the event prevent the fullest possible investigation of the proposal and the involvement of the public. There was no reason to think that a different process would have resulted in a different decision.

[2015] BLGR 593, [2015] UKSC 52, [2015] WLR(D) 333, [2015] 4 All ER 169, [2016] Env LR 5, [2015] 1 WLR 3710, UKSC 2014/0044
Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, Bailii Summary
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 61
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instance – Champion v North Norfolk District Council and Another Admn 7-May-2013
The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for the erection of silos for the storage of barley. He said that the development might adversely impact on a nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest.
Held: The judicial review . .
Appeal from – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Others CA 18-Dec-2013
The claimant had succeeded in a challenge to the grant of planning permission for the building of two barley silos. He said that the development was near and might affect Site of Special Scientic interest. The Council had at the same time said that . .
Cited – Berkeley v Secretary of State For The Environment and Others HL 11-May-2000
The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for a new football ground for Fulham Football club, saying that an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been obtained, but was required.
Held: Where a planning application if . .
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc and Bloomsbury Land Investments v Gloucester City Council Admn 26-Nov-2001
The land site to be developed was of archaeological interest and the relevance of a mitigation strategy was considered.
Held: It is for the planning authority to decide whether there are likely to be significant effects on the environment . .
Cited – Gillespie v Secretary of State and Another Admn 20-Jan-2003
. .
Cited – Bellway Urban Renewal Southern v Gillespie CA 27-Mar-2003
The applicant appealed against a decision for development granted in the absence of its own decision. The judge had quashed the decision because of the absence of an environmental impact statement.
Held: When making the screening decision, it . .
Cited – Jones, Regina (on the Application of) v Mansfield District Council and Another CA 16-Oct-2003
Plannning permission was sought. Objectors said that it would have such an impact that an environmental impact assessment was required. They now sought judicial review of the decision to proceed without one.
Held: The judge had explained the . .
Cited – Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, etc ECJ 7-Sep-2004
ECJ Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna – Concept of ‘plan’ or ‘project’ – Assessment of the implications of certain plans or projects for the protected site.
Cited – Hart District Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others Admn 1-May-2008
Sullivan J said: ‘Unlike an EIA, which must be in the form prescribed by the EIA Directive, and must include, for example, a non-technical summary, enabling the public to express its opinion on the environmental issues raised (see Berkeley v the . .
Cited – Renfree v Mageean CA 30-Jun-2011
Appeal against a quashing of a decision of the planning Inspector appointed by the the Secretary of State, allowing the appellant’s appeal against the refusal of the third respondent to grant planning permission for the erection of a 1.3 megawatt . .
Cited – Berky, Regina (on The Application of) v Newport City Council and Others CA 29-Mar-2012
Appeal against refusal of permission to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of a planning permission given by Newport City Council for a mixed development including the construction of a food store, and the restoration of a former . .
Cited – Loader, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Goverment and Others CA 29-Jun-2012
Pill LJ considered the adoption of screening opinions by local planning authorities: ‘Mr Maurici [for the Secretary of State] accepted that screening decisions will usually be made at an early stage of the planning process. However, if a council . .
Cited – Minister For The Environment, Heritage And Local Government v An Bord Pleanala ECJ 11-Apr-2013
ECJ Environment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Article 6 – Conservation of natural habitats – Special areas of conservation – Assessment of the implications for a protected site of a plan or project – Criteria to be . .
Cited – No Adastral New Town Ltd v Suffolk Coastal District Council and Another CA 17-Feb-2015
Richards LJ considered the language of article 6(3), which ‘focuses on the end result of avoiding damage to an SPA and the carrying out of an AA for that purpose’. He noted the difference in Sweetman between the Advocate General’s formulation, but . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham And Others, ex parte Burkett and Another HL 23-May-2002
The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission for a development which would affect her. The authority objected that the application was made after three months after their decision, and so leave should not be . .
Cited – Gemeinde Altrip v Land Rheinland-Pfalz ECJ 7-Nov-2013
ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 85/337/EEC – Environmental impact assessment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Right to challenge a development consent decision – . .
Cited – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
Cited – Lebus and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v South Cambridgeshire District Council Admn 27-Aug-2002
The court cionsidered the relevance of proposed mitigation measures insofar as they might mitigate environmental effects of a development in a proposed egg production unit for 12,000 free-range chickens.
Held: It should have been obvious that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, European

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550390

Loader, Regina (on The Application of) v Rother District Council and Others: Admn 30 Jun 2015

Application for judicial review of a planning permission for the redevelopment for 39 private sheltered apartments for the elderly with associated communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping, including demolition and replacement outdoor bowls green, indoor rink, club facilities and car park

Patterson DBE J
[2015] EWHC 1877 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549786

Forest of Dean (Friends of The Earth), Regina (on The Application of) v Forest of Dean District Council: CA 9 Jul 2015

Appeal against a judgment dismissing the Appellant’s claim for judicial review of the grant of planning permission for development of two sites within the Forest of Dean

Longmore, Sales LJJ, Hildyard J
[2015] PTSR 1460, [2015] EWCA Civ 683, [2016] Env LR 3
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549768

Venn v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 6 Mar 2015

Application to quash a decision of an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State who had dealt with an appeal by written representations and he had made a visit to the site. The local planning authority, Lewisham London Borough Council had refused planning permission to the developer, Mr Dos Santos. He appealed against that decision, and the inspector in the decision letter allowed his appeal.

Elisabeth Laing DBE J
[2015] EWHC 1186 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547507

Hussain v Regina (London Borough of Brent): CACD 18 Nov 2014

The defendant appealed against a confiscation order of aproximately andpound;500,000. He had been convicted of failure to comply with an enforcement notice in respect of the use of a property as two plannig units. The amount confiscated was calculated as the estimated gross income from the property over five years.
Held: The appeal failed.

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Green J, Sir Colin MacKay
[2014] EWCA Crim 2344, [2015] PTSR D7
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Planning

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546837

Blewett, Regina (on the Application of) v Derbyshire County Council: Admn 7 Nov 2003

Mr Blewett sought judicial review, quashing on three grounds a planning permission given by the Derbyshire County Council to Derbyshire Waste to use land at the former Glapwell Colliery in North-East Derbyshire, for ‘land reclamation by waste disposal with restoration to agricultural, woodland, grassland and nature conservation’.
Held: A review was granted. Sullivan J said: ‘In an imperfect world it is an unrealistic counsel of perfection to expect that an applicant’s environmental statement will always contain the ‘full information’ about the environmental impact of a project. The Regulations are not based upon such an unrealistic expectation. They recognise that an environmental statement may well be deficient, and make provision through the publicity and consultation processes for any deficiencies to be identified so that the resulting ‘environmental information’ provides the local planning authority with as full a picture as possible. There will be cases where the document purporting to be an environmental statement is so deficient that it could not reasonably be described as an environmental statement as defined by the Regulations . . but they are likely to be few and far between.’

Sullivan J
[2003] EWHC 2775 (Admin), [2004] Env LR 29
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Derbyshire Waste Ltd v Blewett and Another CA 11-Nov-2004
Glapswell Colliery had closed. The owners sought to use it for waste disposal by landfill. The objector had obtained judicial review of the permission granted.
Held: The intention of the Landfill Directive was to discourage its use other than . .
Dicta approved – Edwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency HL 16-Apr-2008
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.188502

Gilbert v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: CA 3 Mar 2015

Claimant’s appeal with permission against a decision of Supperstone J in judicial review proceedings. By his judgment, Supperstone J declined to quash (1) the screening direction made by the Secretary of State pursuant to regulation 16 of the 2011 regulations and (2) the grant of a planning permission the next day by the Harborough District Council who are the Second Respondents here and below.

Laws, Lewison, Bean LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 314
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 16
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545615

Fox Land and Property Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: CA 3 Mar 2015

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had rejected a recommendation of a planning inspector that planning permission should be granted for residential development on green belt land.
Held: The appeal failed. Green belt policies applied.

Richards, Underhill, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 298
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Broadview Energy Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 19-Jun-2015
The claimant company challenged the involvement of a constituency MP in a campaign opposing the grant of a planning permissions (in this case for a wind farm). In particular the claimant complained of the failures by the respondent to disclose . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545089

HS2 Action Alliance and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another: CA 11 Mar 2015

[2015] EWCA Civ 203
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Transport

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544225

Protectbath.Org and Victims of Fullers Earth Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Gazelle Properties Ltd: Admn 3 Mar 2015

The Claimant challenged the decision of the Defendant local planning authority to grant outline planning permission to the Interested Party for a residual waste facility and associated development on land at Fosseway Environment Park

Hickinbottom J
[2015] EWHC 537 (Admin)
Bailii

Planning

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543894

Lawson Builders Ltd and Others v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: CA 25 Feb 2015

The appellants challenged the decision of a planning inspector, in which he dismissed the first appellant’s appeal from a decision of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, the second respondent. Wakefield had granted the first appellant’s applications for certificates of lawful development in respect of properties in Pontefract, West Yorkshire, but only on the basis that the development was lawful in consequence of the grant of a planning permission.

Pitcgford, Davis, Lewison LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 122
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543490

No Adastral New Town Ltd v Suffolk Coastal District Council and Another: CA 17 Feb 2015

Richards LJ considered the language of article 6(3), which ‘focuses on the end result of avoiding damage to an SPA and the carrying out of an AA for that purpose’. He noted the difference in Sweetman between the Advocate General’s formulation, but found no support in the court’s judgment for the contention that ‘there must be a screening assessment at an early stage in the decision-making process’: ‘In none of this material do I see even an obligation to carry out a screening assessment, let alone any rule as to when it should be carried out. If it is not obvious whether a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on an SPA, it may be necessary in practice to carry out a screening assessment in order to ensure that the substantive requirements of the Directive are ultimately met. It may be prudent, and likely to reduce delay, to carry one out [at] an early stage of the decision-making process. There is, however, no obligation to do so.’

Richards LJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 88
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543273

Fuller v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 14 Jan 2015

The claimant challenged grant of a planning permission to erect a two story dwelling, saying that a tree would be lost.
Held: The policy does not only provide a condition under which only development will be permitted: it also requires that any impact is minimised. The inspector, whilst recognising that in the application of the policy the development could be permitted, recognised also the need to minimise the impact upon the tree. Thus it appears to me that the condition was wholly necessary in the light of the policy requirement to minimise damage, clearly relevant to the development in question, and nobody has suggested that it was not enforceable or precise or, save as otherwise criticised, reasonable.

Mark Ockleton DHJ
[2015] EWHC 142 (Admin)
Bailii
Citing:
Cited – Christchurch Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 16-Dec-1993
The council appealed against the inspector’s decision to grant permission to a construction company to build houses on land. The land had formerly been used as a school playing field and was now surplus to requirements. The Council wished to put the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.542931