Category: Planning

Timmins and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Gelding Borough Council: CA 22 Jan 2015

The court was asked whether the creation of a cemetery is ‘inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt, within the meaning of section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework, with the consequence that planning permission should not be granted for it except in very special circumstances.

Richards, Tomlinson LJJ, Mitting J
[2015] EWCA Civ 10
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541713

Chichester District Council v First Secretary of State and others: Admn 29 Jul 2003

[2003] EWHC 1924 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – The First Secretary of State, Grant Doe, Gregory Yates, Paul Eames v Chichester District Council CA 29-Sep-2004
The appellants challenged a decision to grant planning consent for a private gipsy with mobile homes. The issue was whether the council in refusing permission and in issuing enforcement proceedings, had infringed the applicants human rights. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.185044

Pugh v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 5 Jan 2015

Objector’s application with regard to planning permission for wind turbine, challenging the assessment of the impact of the development on the settings of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Listed Buildings in the vicinity.

Gilbart J
[2015] EWHC 3 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540472

MH Services Ltd v Secretary of State for The Environment, Transport and The: Admn 14 Feb 2002

Application under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the decision of an inspector whereby he upheld the refusal of planning permission to the applicants to erect a dwelling on land in Allendale in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The inspector treated the application as one for a new dwelling and decided against the applicants on the basis that the policies in the relevant plan precluded the erection of new dwellings in the particular area concerned.

Collins J
[2002] EWHC 283 (Admin), [2002] 9 EG 219
Bailii

Planning

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539974

HS2 Action Alliance and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport: CA 9 Dec 2014

[2014] EWCA Civ 1578
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – HS2 Action Alliance Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport and Another Admn 6-Aug-2014
The claimants objected to the proposed HS2 rail link seeking now judicial review of safeguarding arrangements made. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Planning

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539781

London Borough of Islington and Others v The Mayor of London: Admn 25 Mar 2014

The Claimants apply to quash the decision of the Defendant, the Mayor of London, to publish certain Revised Early Minor Alterations (‘REMA’) to the London Plan on 11th October 2013, under section 113(3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (‘PCPA 2004’), on the grounds that the Defendant exceeded his powers.

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE
[2014] EWHC 751 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.523158

Oates, Regina (on The Application of) v Wealden District Council and Another: CA 8 Jun 2018

Was a local planning authority’s decision to grant planning permission for a development of housing unlawful because it was made on a false understanding of regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010

Lord Justice Davis, Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Lindblom
[2018] EWCA Civ 1304
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.617322

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 developer was, after the reserved matters approval perfected the Second Planning Permission, able to elect to continue and complete the development under the Second Planning Permission rather than the First Planning Permission. The developer had elected to continue and complete the development under the Second Planning Permission. The court should not grant the declaration sought by the Claimant.

Hickinbottom J
[2014] EWHC 3809 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 57(1) 106, Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 122(2)
Citing:
Cited – Pye v Secretary of State for Environment and North Cornwall District Council Admn 5-May-1998
An application was made under section 73 to develop land without compliance with conditions previously attached to a planning permission, the relevant condition being that the development commence within five years of the date of planning . .
Cited – Regina v 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Leicester City Council ex parte Powergen UK Limited CA 2000
. .
Cited – Pilkington v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 1973
A planning permission was granted to build a bungalow on part of the land, site ‘B’, subject to a condition it should be the only house to be built on the land. He built the bungalow. Later the owner discovered the existence of an earlier permission . .
Cited – Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB (‘the Antaios’) HL 1984
A ship charterer discovered that the bills of lading were incorrect, but delayed withdrawal from the charter for 13 days. They now sought leave to appeal the arbitration award against them.
Held: Though he deprecated extending the use of the . .
Cited – Greyfort Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Another CA 28-Jul-2011
The parties disputed whether certain works undertaken amounted to a commencement of operations so as to preserve a planning permission.
Held: Richards LJ equated implementation of planning permission with the start of the permitted works, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538879

Fowles v Heathrow Airport Ltd: ChD 15 Feb 2008

The landlord had opposed the tenant’s application to renew his tenancy, and the tenant also claimed title to additional land by adverse possession. The tenant asserted various business uses, some of which the landlord denied. The landlord went into liquidation, the title was disclaimed by the liquidator, and the mortgagee sold on to the defendant. At the same time in planning enforcement proceedings, the tenant had not asserted some of the uses he now claimed, and he remained in breach of planning controls. The landlord said that the failure to comply with planning obligations allowed the landlord to resist renewal.
Held: A pragmatic approach was appropriate in considering planning enforcement notices. The tenants argument that there was a technical breach by the planners was ineffective. The tenant’s activities on the site had been substantially unlawful over many years. It followed that under the 1954 Act, the court should refuse renewal. As to the claim for acquiring title by adverse possession, the evidence did not support possession over a sufficiently long period of time. The registered proprietor was entitled to possession.

Lewison J
[2008] EWHC 219 (Ch)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(c)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Turner and Bell v Searles (Stanford-le-Hope) Limited 1977
The landlord opposed the grant of a new tenancy. The business tenancy was an oral one, and he opposed renewal on the ground that the tenant was operating in breach of planning controls.
Held: An illegal use is a reason connected with the . .
Cited – Roger Raymond Jarmain v Secretary of State for Environment and Another CA 12-Apr-2000
Brooke LJ contrasted a ‘purist’ approach and a ‘pragmatic’ approach to questions of planning enforcement and preferred the pragmatic approach: ‘Anyone who had any experience of the operation of the former law relating to the enforcement of planning . .
Cited – Cresswell and Cresswell v Pearson Admn 20-Mar-1997
The grant of a temporary planning permission for a use that has previously been the subject of an enforcement notice has the effect of discharging the enforcement notice for all time, in so far as it relates to that use, rather than merely for the . .
Cited – Henry Boot Homes Limited v Bassetlaw District Council CA 28-Nov-2002
The claimant asserted that the behaviour of the local authority gave rise to a legitimate expectation such as to allow them to commence works in breach of a planning condition.
Held: The circumstances under which a claimant might rely upon a . .
Cited – Regina (Westminster City Council) v British Waterways Board HL 1985
The tenant occupied land next to a canal under a lease from the Defendants. The landlord opposed a renewal saying they wished to occupy the land themselves for the purposes of a marina. The tenant said the plan was unrealistic, because it would not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Landlord and Tenant, Planning

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.264534

In The Petition of Tesco Stores Ltd for Judicial Review of A Decision of Perth and Kinross Council Dated 13 November 2013: SCS 23 Oct 2014

Outer House, Court of Session – petition for judicial review concerns a decision by the Perth and Kinross Council the relevant planning authority, to agree to the removal of a condition in an agreement between itself and Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited.

Lord Glennie
[2014] ScotCS CSOH – 153
Bailii

Scotland, Planning

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538169

Commercial Estates Group Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 3 Oct 2014

Claimant’s renewed application for permission to bring Judicial Review Proceedings to challenge the Secretary of State’s screening direction to the effect that a residential development proposed by the second and third Interested Parties does not constitute ‘EIA Development’ within the meaning of the 2011 Regulations.

Stuart-Smith J
[2014] EWHC 3089 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011

Planning

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537324

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and Regions, Ex P Bath and North East Somerset District Council: QBD 28 Jan 1999

Where an application for listed buildings consent had been refused on the basis that the application was invalid, on an appeal the Secretary of State had the power also to judge on the validity issue.

Times 28-Jan-1999, Gazette 24-Feb-1999
Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (1995 No 419)
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.85492

Dill v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Another: SC 20 May 2020

Two important questions, one procedural and the other substantive, arising out of the decision of a planning inspector under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It concerns the correct treatment of a pair of early 18th century lead urns, attributed to the Flemish sculptor John van Nost, each resting on a limestone pedestal of a slightly later date.

Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales
[2020] UKSC 20, [2020] 1 WLR 2206, [2020] PTSR 907
Bailii, Bailii Summary, Bailiii Facts Summary
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.650856

East Riding of Yorkshire Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Another: Admn 2 Dec 2021

Two claims for statutory review bought pursuant to section 288 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to two decisions following appeals conducted by way of public inquiry in respect of two refusals of planning permission by the claimant.

The Honourable Mr Justice Dove
[2021] EWHC 3271 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.670281

Hodgetts v Chiltern District Council: HL 1983

The House was asked as to an alleged offence of non-compliance with an enforcement notice under section 89(1) of the 1971 Act, and particularly: ‘Whether an information which alleges initial failure to comply with the provisions of an enforcement notice under section 89(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 ‘on and since a certain date’ is bad for duplicity.’ The appellants were said to have used buildings as an office and for storage of builders’ materials in breach of an enforcement notice. The Crown Court was persuaded that section 89(5) created a continuing offence which occurred and repeated itself during the period of default and that since the information related to more than one day they were bad for duplicity.
Held: The House distinguished the two classes of enforcement notices to which section 89 gave rise, namely those which required the owner of the land to do something on it (‘do notices’) and secondly those which required the user of land to stop doing something on it (‘desist notices’).
Lord Roskill said: ‘It is not an essential characteristic of a criminal offence that any prohibited act or omission, in order to constitute a single offence, should take place once and for all on a single day. It may take place, whether continuously or intermittently, over a period of time. The initial offence created by sub-section (1) in the case of non-compliance with a ‘do notice’, is complete once and for all when the period for compliance with the notice expires . . ‘
The information charging the offence was ‘on and since May 27, 1980’ and was validly drafted and was not bad for duplicity. Having so decided, Lord Roskill went on to say this as to the practice of charging, by reference to s.89 (5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, on the basis of ‘on and since’ a specified date: ‘I see no objection to that practice, but it might be preferable if hereafter offences under the first limb of s.89 (5) were charged as having been committed between two specified dates, the termini usually being on the one hand the date when compliance with the enforcement notice first became due and on the other hand a date not later than when the information was hand, or of course some earlier date if meanwhile the enforcement notice had been complied with.’

Lord Roskill
[1983] 2 AC 120
Town and Country Planning Act 1971 89(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tovey and Another v Regina CACD 9-Mar-2005
Each defendant appealed sentences where he had committed a series of offences and the sentence had been for specimen acts.
Held: When choosing representative offences a prosecutor should be careful to try to give the court a proper picture of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Planning

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.224233

Davis v Bromley Corporation: CA 1907

The plaintiff had submitted building plans for the defendant’s approval, which were refused for alleged non-compliance with by-laws. The Plaintiff contended that the plans complied with the by-laws and that the rejection was not bona fide.
Held: The court denied the existence of a tort of misfeasance in public office.
Vaughan Williams LJ said: ‘It is not contested that the legislature has given power to this body to decide whether they will sanction such works or not; it is not suggested that in so deciding the Council are exercising judicial functions, and in fact they are not doing so; they are exercising a discretion vested in them by Statute . . and the whole object of this action is really to see if, by this means, the plaintiff can overrule the Council’s decision.’

Vaughan Williams LJ, Sir Gorell Barnes, President, and Bigham J
[1908] 1 KB 170
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England HL 18-May-2000
The applicants alleged misfeasance against the Bank of England in respect of the regulation of a bank.
Held: The Bank could not be sued in negligence, but the tort of misfeasance required clear evidence of misdeeds. The action was now properly . .
Cited – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Planning

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.194964

Garden and Leisure Group Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v North Somerset Council and Another: Admn 4 Jul 2003

The claimant garden centre sought to challenge a relaxation on planning restrictions over a competing centre.
Held: The section 106 agreemnent was to be looked at to see what purpose was served by the original conditions. Section 106A(6) does not require that the obligation continues to serve its original purpose. What matters is whether the obligation continues to serve a useful purpose. The members had not properly considered what purpose had been served, or looked at the suggested terms as a whole. The application was not premature since the faults were probably incapable of correction otherwise.

The Honourable Mr Justice Richards
[2003] EWHC 1605 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 106 106A
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.184271

Regina (on the Application of Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council: Admn 30 Oct 2001

The court refused an application for judicial review of the grant of planning permission. There had been a considerable delay between the decision to make the grant and the decision notice, during which time guidance had changed.
Held: The authority had considered the matters it was required to do, but as administrative acts of its officers.

[2001] EWHC Admin 839
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Regina (on the Application of Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council Ltd CA 9-Oct-2002
The applicant sought a judicial review of a grant of planning permission. She said that in the considerable time gap between the decision in principle, and the decision notice, several elements had changed requiring the decision to be reconsidered. . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina (on the Application of Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council Ltd CA 9-Oct-2002
The applicant sought a judicial review of a grant of planning permission. She said that in the considerable time gap between the decision in principle, and the decision notice, several elements had changed requiring the decision to be reconsidered. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.167252

Mark and Lucia Shepherd v Secretary of State for Environment and Three Rivers District Council: Admn 26 Nov 1996

The applicants appealed an enforcement notice, having constructed a driveway between their house and the highway. The court held that it could not impose a requirement that if it was to be permitted development, such works must be of short distance and or over land owned by them. The regulations included no such restriction.

[1996] EWHC Admin 273
Bailii
General Permitted Development Order 1995 Class B of Part 2 of Schedule
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.136821

HS2 Action Alliance Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport and Another: Admn 6 Aug 2014

The claimants objected to the proposed HS2 rail link seeking now judicial review of safeguarding arrangements made.

Lindblom J
[2014] EWHC 2759 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – HS2 Action Alliance and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport CA 9-Dec-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Transport

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535656

Arsenal Football Club Plc v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 30 Jul 2014

The claimant challenged a refusal to amend planning conditions attached to its use of their new football stadium, saying that the inpector had failed to consider whether the proposal woud comply with the requirements of the local development plan.

Cranston J
[2014] EWHC 2620 (Admin)
Bailii

Planning

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535527

Maries, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Merton: Admn 31 Jul 2014

Challenge to the lawfulness of the defendant’s decision of June 2013 to lock entrances to the bowling green area on the Dundonald Recreation Ground and to erect two signs on the perimeter of the bowling green area and on the perimeter of the tennis court area, purportedly informing the public that the bowling facility had now closed and any use of the Green for bowling was not permitted, and the courts were only available to the public outside school operating hours.

King J
[2014] EWHC 2691 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Maries, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Merton Admn 31-Jul-2014
The claimant challenged the use by the respondent of powers of appropriation of land under the 1972 Act, opposing the development of the local recreation ground appropriated by them. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535534

An Taisce (The National Trust for Ireland), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Another: CA 1 Aug 2014

The Claimant challenged by judicial review the decision of the Defendant to make an Order granting development consent for the construction of a European pressurised reactor nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset. They said that the respondent had not properly considered the effect of the works and plant on them in Ireland.

Longmore, Sullivan, Gloster LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1111
Bailii
Directive 2011/92/EU
England and Wales

Planning, Environment, Utilities, European

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535519

Grampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland: SCS 1983

The Regional Council appealed against the Secretary of State’s decision to issue positive certificates. Lord Dunpark said: ‘Counsel for all parties agreed that the grantor of the certificate must disregard the proposal to acquire. The issue between the appellants and the respondents is whether or not the purpose or reasons for the acquisition must also be disregarded for certificate purposes. On the one hand, it is said that it is nonsense to grant a certificate for development for which the grantor knows planning permission would not be granted. On the other hand, it is said that, as this is a hypothetical, not a practical, exercise, if one has to disregard the proposal to acquire, one must also disregard the purpose of the acquisition.’ and ‘It seems to me to follow from the fact that the value of the land is not to be affected by the prospect of compulsory acquisition that its value is not to be affected by the development proposed by the acquiring authority. One cannot discount the one without the other.’

Lord Dunpark
1984 SC 1 13, (1983) 47 P and CR 540
Scotland
Cited by:
Appeal from – Grampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland HL 1983
The House endorsed the practice of imposing negative conditions in planning consents, upholding the validity of a condition that the development of the site could not commence until the road on the western boundary of the site had been closed by a . .
Cited – Newell and others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; Fletcher Estates (Harlescott) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
Where a certificate of appropriate development was issued for land to be acquired compulsorily, the land was to be valued at the date of the proposal to acquire it compulsorily allowing a discount for any damage to the value incurred by the long . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.248228

Grampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland: HL 1983

The House endorsed the practice of imposing negative conditions in planning consents, upholding the validity of a condition that the development of the site could not commence until the road on the western boundary of the site had been closed by a road closure order which the Secretary of State would have to confirm which overcame an objection to a proposed industrial development on the ground of road traffic safety.
Lord Bridge of Harwich said: ‘it is difficult to envisage a situation in practice in which the Tribunal, when assessing compensation, could be persuaded to act on a contrary opinion to that certified by the planning authority or the Secretary of State on appeal.’ and ‘It will be convenient to refer to the certificates contemplated by subsection (4)(a) and (b) as positive and negative certificates respectively. A decision by a planning authority, or by the Secretary of State on appeal, whether a positive or a negative certificate is appropriate, must proceed on the hypothesis predicated by subsection (3) and determine what planning permission, if any, would have been granted if the land were not proposed to be acquired by any authority possessing compulsory purchase powers. The sole purpose of the certification procedure is to provide a basis for determining the development value, if any, to be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable on compulsory acquisition. If a positive certificate is issued, it is to be assumed that the certified permission would be granted, subject to such conditions and at such future time, if any, as may be specified in the certificate: . . If a negative certificate is issued, ‘regard is to be had’ to the negative opinion certified: Although this is not conclusive, it is difficult to envisage a situation in practice in which the Lands Tribunal, when assessing compensation, could be persuaded to act on a contrary opinion to that certified by the planning authority or the Secretary of State on appeal.’

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of Harwich
[1984] SC (HL) 58, (1983) 47 PandCR 43, [1983] 1 WLR 1340, [1983] 3 All ER 673
Scotland
Citing:
Approved – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1980
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be . .
Appeal from – Grampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland SCS 1983
The Regional Council appealed against the Secretary of State’s decision to issue positive certificates. Lord Dunpark said: ‘Counsel for all parties agreed that the grantor of the certificate must disregard the proposal to acquire. The issue between . .

Cited by:
Cited – South Lanarkshire Council v The Lord Advocate As Representing the Scottish Ministers and others IHCS 30-Aug-2001
Following a planning permission the applicant’s land became subject to compulsory purchase, and they were entitled to a certificate of appropriate alternative development. An application was made, but much later, and then granted on appeal. The . .
Cited – Stewart v Perth and Kinross Council HL 1-Apr-2004
The claimant challenged refusal of a licence to sell second hand cars, saying that the licensing requirements imposed were outwith the Act under which they had been made. The licensing scheme imposed additional requirements.
Held: Though a . .
Cited – Jones v Secretary of State for Wales and Ogwr District Council CA 1990
The court adopted as a principle that a Grampian condition could only be imposed if there was a reasonable prospect of compliance within the time limit imposed on the permission. . .
Cited – Douglas John Merritt v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Mendip District Council Admn 5-Aug-1999
The applicant appealed refusal of planning permission for residential development of a small plot of land. The said that the inspector had wrongly rejected the application of a Grampian condition on the basis that it would not be fulfilled and also . .
Cited – British Railways Board v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another HL 29-Oct-1993
Permission had been given for residential development of land provided that access was provided. The access specified was to be over land owned by the council. It was known that the Council would not allow such access. The land owner sought an order . .
Distinguished – Newell and others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; Fletcher Estates (Harlescott) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
Where a certificate of appropriate development was issued for land to be acquired compulsorily, the land was to be valued at the date of the proposal to acquire it compulsorily allowing a discount for any damage to the value incurred by the long . .
Cited – Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority v Elsick Development Company Limited SC 25-Oct-2017
The court was asked whether, anticipating substantial growth, a local authority had power to attach to permissions for development conditions intended to recover sums for pooled fund for infrastructure development.
Held: The appeal failed. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.180515

Newell and others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; Fletcher Estates (Harlescott) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another: HL 17 Feb 2000

Where a certificate of appropriate development was issued for land to be acquired compulsorily, the land was to be valued at the date of the proposal to acquire it compulsorily allowing a discount for any damage to the value incurred by the long expectation of that particular proposal and its consequences and not by reference to another proposal which it replaced.

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough, Lord Millett
Times 23-Feb-2000, Gazette 02-Mar-2000, [2000] UKHL 10, [2000] 2 AC 307, [2000] 1 All ER 929, [2000] 2 WLR 438
House of Lords, Bailii
Land Compensation Act 1961 22(2), Planning and Compensation Act 1991 65(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instance – Fletcher Estates (Harlescott) Ltd and Executors of J V Longmore v Secretary of State for Environment and Secretary of State for Transport Admn 10-Jun-1997
The date of the acquiring proposal is the date to consider as to planning aspects on deciding whether to quash a certificate of appropriate development. . .
Appeal from – Secretary of State for Environment v Fletcher Estates (Harlescott) Limited and Secretary of State for Environment v Newell; Longmore and Longmore (the Executors of J V Longmore) CA 11-Jun-1998
Land was to be valued at the date of the proposal to acquire it compulsorily allowing a discount for any damage to the value incurred by the long expectation of that particular proposal and its consequences and not by reference to another proposal . .
Cited – Pointe Gourde Quarrying and Transport Co Ltd v Sub-Intendant of Crown Lands PC 29-Jul-1947
Under a wartime agreement in 1941 the UK government agreed to lease to the US Government land in Trinidad on which the US could establish a naval base. To do this the Crown acquired the Pointe Gourde land for its limestone quarry which would be used . .
Distinguished – Grampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland HL 1983
The House endorsed the practice of imposing negative conditions in planning consents, upholding the validity of a condition that the development of the site could not commence until the road on the western boundary of the site had been closed by a . .
Cited – Jelson v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1969
A proposed ring road had been cancelled. The landowners applied for certificates of appropriate alternative development. The Minister confirmed the negative certificates which had been issued by the local planning authority. It was contended that . .
Cited – Grampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland SCS 1983
The Regional Council appealed against the Secretary of State’s decision to issue positive certificates. Lord Dunpark said: ‘Counsel for all parties agreed that the grantor of the certificate must disregard the proposal to acquire. The issue between . .

Cited by:
Cited – South Lanarkshire Council v The Lord Advocate As Representing the Scottish Ministers and others IHCS 30-Aug-2001
Following a planning permission the applicant’s land became subject to compulsory purchase, and they were entitled to a certificate of appropriate alternative development. An application was made, but much later, and then granted on appeal. The . .
Cited – Homes and Communities Agency v JS Bloor (Wilmslow) Ltd SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to the sums awarded on compulsory acquisition of grazing land, but which land had a substantial hope value for residential development.
Held: The tribunal’s application of these difficult provisions to the complex facts of this case . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Planning

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.159045

Sustainable Shetland v The Scottish Ministers and Viking Energy Partnership for Judicial Review: SCS 9 Jul 2014

Inner House, First Division – Application regarding substantial wind farm on Shetland. The claimants said that the defenders had failed to take proper account of te effect of the proposed development on the whimbrel.

Lord Brodie
[2014] ScotCS CSIH – 60, 2014 SLT 806, 2015 SC 59, 2014 GWD 24-464, 2015 SCLR 131
Bailii
Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2000, Electricity Act 1989
Citing:
At Outer House – Sustainable Shetland, Re Judicial Review SCS 24-Sep-2013
Outer House – The petitioner environmental group objected to the grant under the 1989 Act of permission for the construction for a substantial wind farm in Central Mainland, Shetland. . .
Second Division – Sustainable Shetland v The Scottish Ministers and Another SCS 3-Dec-2013
Second Division – Inner House -The petitioners challenged the grant of permission under the 1989 Act for a windfarm on Shetland. . .

Cited by:
Inner House – Sustainable Shetland v The Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland) SC 9-Feb-2015
Wind Farm Permission Took Proper Account
Sustainable Shetland challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm saying that the respondents had failed properly to take account of their obligations under the Birds Directive, in respect of the whimbrel, a protected migratory bird.
Scotland, Planning, Environment

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.534156

McCarthy and others v Basildon District Council: CA 25 Nov 2008

Application by Basildon District Council to seek that this court should order that the Equality and Human Rights Commission should not be permitted to intervene; or, if it is, should only be permitted to intervene in writing; or, failing that, that if it is permitted to intervene orally, it should be made a party and at risk of any costs incurred as a result of any unhelpful intervention.

Moses LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1586
Bailii
England and Wales

Discrimination, Local Government, Planning

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.291900

King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Council v Bunning: QBD 7 Nov 2013

Application for order finding the defendant and others to be in contempt of court in breaching an order as to the use of land for residential purposes.
Held: A committal application has the character of criminal proceedings. The alleged contemnor is therefore entitled to legal aid, so that he can be properly represented. As to the availability of public funding for professional representation of a party subject to an application for committal for contempt of court and Regulation 9(v) of the 2013 Regulations, Blake J said: ‘I consider that the present drafting of that regulation combined with the terms of the prescribed form CRM14 are likely to give rise to very real difficulty within the profession in knowing how to apply for legal aid for contempt proceedings in the High Court and the judiciary in knowing how to determine such applications until the matter is clarified. I would hope that following this judgment thought can be given to making appropriate changes to both so that applicants consulting the Regulations will not have to read this judgment to make sense of them, assuming that it has done so.’

Blake J
[2013] EWHC 3390 (QB), [2014] 2 All ER 1095, [2014] 1 Costs LO 85, [2015] 1 WLR 531
Bailii
Criminal Legal Aid (General) Regulations 2013 9(v)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Inplayer Ltd and Another v Thorogood CA 25-Nov-2014
Appeal against a decision that the first defendant in a chancery action was guilty of two contempts of court by reason of untruthful statements in his affidavit. He complained of procedural irregularities affecting the fairness.
Held: ‘the . .
Cited – Discovery Land Company Llc and Others v Jirehouse and Others ChD 7-Jun-2019
The first claimant had requested the committal of a defendant for his alleged failure to comply with undertakings he had given to the court. He now sought an adjournment saying that he had not been advised of the availability of legal aid, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Contempt of Court, Legal Aid

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.517505

Fielder and Fladgate Llp v Westminster City Council: Admn 27 Feb 2009

The claimants challenged the grant of planning permission for the development of land including the offices of which they were tenants. They said that the permission had been granted in error as to the application of the policy for providing affordable housing.

Collins J
[2009] EWHC 991 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Land Securities Plc and Others v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm) ChD 25-Mar-2009
The claimants sought damages, alleging that the defendants had abused the litigation process by issuing proceedings to challenge a grant of planning permission to the claimants not so as to defeat the grant, but by causing the claimants . .
See Also – Land Securities Plc and Others v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm) CA 18-Dec-2009
The claimants wanted planning permission to redevelop land. The defendant firm of solicitors, their tenants, had challenged the planning permission. The claimants alleged that that opposition was a tortious abuse because its true purpose was to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.375605

Regina (on the Application of Carlton-Conway) v London Borough of Harrow: Admn 7 Nov 2001

The applicant objected to an application for planning permission by a neighbour. The authority authorised officers to exercise delegated powers to grant permission where no objection had been received. Even then the officer could exercise the power only where the development sought complied with all relevant policies. Here an objection was made. The officer mistakenly viewed that plan as complying with the policies and granted the application
Held: It was for the planning officer to interpret planning policies and to decide whether there was a conflict, so long as he acted reasonably and in good faith. It was a subjective test as to whether the officer viewed the application as complying with the policies.

[2001] EWHC Admin 873
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Regina (on the application of Carlton-Conway) v Harrow London Borough Council CA 14-Jun-2002
The appellant had objected to a neighbour’s planning application. Contested applications could only be handled under delegated powers where the permission sought would comply with the relevant policies. The application was granted because in the . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina (on the application of Carlton-Conway) v Harrow London Borough Council CA 14-Jun-2002
The appellant had objected to a neighbour’s planning application. Contested applications could only be handled under delegated powers where the permission sought would comply with the relevant policies. The application was granted because in the . .
Cited – Richardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.167259

Buckinghamshire County Council v North West Estates plc and others: ChD 31 May 2002

The planning authority sought injunctions for enforcement notices. The landowner argued that human rights law required the court when looking at such a request to look at the entire planning history.
Held: Although the court could look to a document directly referred to by a notice before requiring it to be followed, it was not obliged to investigate beyond such documents. A breach of the land owner’s article 8 rights could cause a court to allow enforcement, but the basic issues involved in the planning decision underlying the enforcement notice were not to be put at issue.

Mr Justice Jacob
Gazette 11-Jul-2002, [2002] EWHC 1088 (Ch)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Buckinghamshire County Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Brown Admn 31-Aug-2000
The principal shareholder and managing director of a company which was the sole tenant of a building was competent to object to a planning enforcement notice. The corporate veil was not to be set aside except in special circumstances, and in this . .
Appealed to – North West Estates Plc v Buckinghamshire County Council CA 22-May-2003
There had been many attempts to enforce and resist enforcement of a planning notice.
Held: The landowner was not entitled now to challenge the application for injunctive relief, where he had not appealed the validity of the enforcement notice. . .
Cited – Mansi v Elstree Rural District Council QBD 1964
The local planning authority served an enforcement notice reciting that the appellant had changed the use of a glasshouse on a nursery garden from use for agricultural purposes to the use for the sale of goods and requiring the appellant to . .
Cited – 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 – Kingston London Borough Council v Environment Secretary 1973
Planning was granted for the rebuilding of a railway station on condition that the land allocated for parking should be made available for such purposes at all times and used for no other purpose. The station was duly rebuilt but the car park was . .
Cited – Regina v Basildon District Council Admn 1996
The essence of the section 187B procedure is to achieve a speedy resolution of a planning problem. The courts have repeatedly emphasised that the injunction proceedings are not to be used as an opportunity to re-argue the planning merits of the case . .
Cited – Porter, Searle and Others, Berry and Harty v South Buckinghamshire District Council, Chichester District Council, Wrexham County Borough Council, Hertsmere Borough Councilt CA 12-Oct-2001
Local authorities had obtained injunctions preventing the defendants from taking up occupation, where they had acquired land with a view to living on the plots in mobile homes, but where planning permission had been refused. The various defendants . .

Cited by:
See also – Buckinghamshire County Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Brown Admn 31-Aug-2000
The principal shareholder and managing director of a company which was the sole tenant of a building was competent to object to a planning enforcement notice. The corporate veil was not to be set aside except in special circumstances, and in this . .
Cited – North West Estates Plc v Buckinghamshire County Council CA 22-May-2003
There had been many attempts to enforce and resist enforcement of a planning notice.
Held: The landowner was not entitled now to challenge the application for injunctive relief, where he had not appealed the validity of the enforcement notice. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.174319

Jennings Motors Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and another: CA 27 Nov 1981

The land owners had demolished a building and erected a new building on a small part of the entire site, but without obtaining planning permission. The local authority argued that this was a change of use and a breach of planning control.
Held: The erection of a new building to replace an earlier one did not constitute a new planning unit, but the new building could inherit the use established by the former.

Lord Denning MR, Oliver, Watkins LJJ
[1982] 1 All ER 471, [1982] QB 541, [1982] 2 WLR 131, (1981) 43 P and CR 316
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 22-Jun-1972
The appellants had purchased land which had been used as a dwelling with a lean-to annex which had been used as a scrap yard, selling off car parts. The appellant had reconstructed the annex with a shop front, and began to use it more substantially . .
Cited – Aston v Secretary of State for the Environment 9-Apr-1973
The court considered the planning effect of a new building on about a half of a site. Lord Widgery CJ: ‘. . The principle which one derives from the authorities and applies to the present case is that, where you have a new building erected, that . .
Cited – Petticoat Lane Rentals Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1971
A burnt out site had had a lawful use for a market but was granted a planning permission for a new commercial building. When the building had been constructed the market had carried on, on the ground floor of the building and it was contended that . .
Cited – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1980
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be . .
Cited – Thomas David (Porthcawl) Ltd and others v Penybont Rural District Council and others 5-Oct-1972
The appellant complained that an enforcement notice had been served as to an entire plot of land when the activities complained of, sand and gravel extraction, had occurred on only two smaller parts.
Held: The site should be looked at as a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.246384

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 when leaving. That use was recognised as lawful under planning law. The authority decided to erect barriers making such use impossible, and the claimant sought compensation for damage to his practice. The Court of Appeal had decided that the erection of the barriers was under section 66 of the 1980 Act, and not section 80, and that therefore compensation would be payable. The Council appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The common law rights of access from property to a public have been severely curtailed by statute, and in general no compensation would be payable. Neither of the sections could be seen as more specific than the other.
The Council were entitled to choose section 80 for their purpose if it was not an attempt to circumvent a restriction provided elsewhere (eg section 66).
That choice did not amount to a deprivation of the claimant’s use of his land, but was merely a control of his use for the purposes of safety. This was happening in the context of planning control in which a state enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation.
A use of property immune from planning control did not amount to a permission for that use.
Carnwath L said: ‘The issue is not simply whether the council’s action is an abuse of its powers under section 80, but whether in that action ‘a fair balance was . . struck between the competing general and individual interests.’ On the other hand, there is no challenge to the compatibility of section 80 as such. Accordingly, the mere fact that another statutory route was available involving compensation does not in itself lead to the conclusion that reliance on section 80 was disproportionate. ‘

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes
[2013] UKSC 40, [2013] PTSR 921, [2013] WLR(D) 250, [2013] HRLR 26, [2014] RVR 148, [2013] 26 EG 106, [2013] RTR 26, [2013] WLR(D) 250, [2013] 3 EGLR 29, [2013] 1 WLR 2022, [2013] 4 All ER 97, UKSC 2012/0006
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, WLRD
Highways Act 1980 66(2) 80, European Convention on Human Rights A1P1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pretty v Solly CA 24-Jan-1859
In a statutory construction the specific overrides the general – generalia specialibus non derogant. Sir John Romilly MR said: ‘The general rules which are applicable to particular and general enactments in statutes are very clear, the only . .
Cited – Marshall v Blackpool Corporation HL 1934
A land-owner having land adjacent to a public highway has, at common law, free access to and from the highway at any point where they abut.
Lord Atkin said: ‘The owner of land adjoining a highway has a right of access to the highway from any . .
Cited – Ching Garage Ltd v Chingford Corporation HL 1961
Lord Radcliffe said: ‘I think, however, that it needs to be remembered in connection with this statement that the full extent of the common law right to enter the highway at every point of the frontage for any highway purpose must have been modified . .
Cited – Westminster Bank Limited v The Minister for Housing and Local Government, Beverley Borough Council HL 1971
The Bank’s application for planning permission was refused on the grounds that the development might prejudice the possible future widening of a road. The local authority could have prescribed a building line in accordance with a provision of the . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Chassagnou and Others v France ECHR 29-Apr-1999
A law permitted local authorities to oblige landowners to transfer hunting rights over private land to approved hunting associations. The landowners could not prevent hunting on their property. Landowners so affected were made members automatically . .
Cited – Thomas and Others v Bridgend County Borough Council CA 26-Jul-2011
Carnwath LJ considered the effect of Bugajny and other cases after Sporrong: ‘ Later cases (see eg Bugajny v Poland (Application No 22531/05) (unreported) given 6 November 2007, para 56 and following) have given further guidance on the practical . .
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 – Bugajny And Others v Poland ECHR 6-Nov-2007
The claimants complained that their land had been expropriated. Certain plots in a development area had been designated as ‘internal roads’, which were in due course built and opened to the public. The developers sought to transfer ownership to the . .
Cited – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .

Cited by:
Cited – London Borough of Southwark and Another v Transport for London SC 5-Dec-2018
Question as to the meaning of the GLA Roads and Side Roads (Transfer of Property etc) Order 2000. When the highway was transferred was only the working surfaces, the road surface and the airspace and subsoil necessary for the operation, maintenance . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Planning, Damages, Human Rights

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.510916