Category: Planning

Regina v Yeovil Borough Council, ex parte Trustees of Elim Pentecostal Church, Yeovil: QBD 1971

The Council’s Planning Committee had resolved that the town clerk should be authorised to approve the application when evidence of an agreement about car parking facilities had been received.
Held: There is no effective planning permission unless and until the written notice is issued to the applicant. No such notice having been given the authority was free to alter its decision.

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ Browne and Bridge JJ

Citations:

(1971) 23 PandCR 39, [1971] 70 LGR 142

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.193784

Backer v Secretary of State for the Environment: 1983

Complaint was made that the occupier had taken up occupation of a vehicle, a Commer van, ‘adapted’ for human habitation, and therefore under the control of the 1960 Act, but on land for which there was no planning permission for use for caravans.
Held: The defendant had merely placed bed and other furniture in an otherwise unchanged motor vehicle. It was not adapted in the absence of some physical alteration. When considering whether

Judges:

David Widdecombe QC

Citations:

[1983] 2 All ER 1021, [1983] 1 WLR 1485, (1984) 47 P and CR 149

Statutes:

Caravan Sites and Control of development Act 1960 29(1), Town and Country Planning Act 1971 87(3) 290(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Doubted – Impey v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 2-Jan-1983
The owner of a dog kennels carried out works both internal and external to change the building into two residential units. The Council served an improvement notice. The respondent found that no material change of use had yet taken place.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council SC 6-Apr-2011
The land-owner had planning permission to erect a barn, conditional on its use for agricultural purposes. He built inside it a house and lived there from 2002. In 2006. He then applied for a certificate of lawful use. The inspector allowed it, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.188788

JJ Gallagher Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another: QBD 23 Aug 2002

Application was made for permission for an A2 use on land for which permission had previously been granted for A1 use. The Secretary of State reversed the inspector’s decision on the basis that he had failed to follow the necessary sequence of tests.
Held: The questions at issue as to the appropriateness of the site for a use were ones of judgement, not of fact. The regulation applied the sequential test only to the latter. The ‘class of goods’ approach was not inconsistent with PPG 6. However the Secretary of States decision was seriously flawed in having failed to give sufficient reasons for his decision, and the claimant had been prejudiced by that failure. The Secretary’s decision was quashed.

Judges:

Mr George Bartlett QC

Citations:

Gazette 19-Sep-2002

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedures) Rules 2000 17(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment 1992
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.177320

Howes v Secretary of State for the Environment: QBD 1984

The inspector had directed himself that the removal of a hedge and the creation of an access was ‘a continuous operation and each step in the work prolong[ed] the period for serving the enforcement notice as regards every earlier step of the development.’
Held: The notice stood.

Judges:

Hodgson J

Citations:

[1984] JPL 439

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sage v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others HL 10-Apr-2003
The appellant had challenged an enforcement notice requiring him to pull down a partially built house. The issue was when the four year limitation period had commenced. Did the four year limitation period commence when the works were complete, or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196899

Regina (on the application of Lee) v First Secretary of State and another: Admn 3 Sep 2003

The landowner had placed two caravans within a barn, and occupied them. The planning authority issued enforcement proceedings, and he sought a certificate of lawful development.
Held: The fact that the caravans were not connected to the property did not mean that residence in them was not a use of the barn as a dwelling.

Judges:

Judge Rich QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the division

Citations:

Gazette 02-Oct-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 1982
The Secretary of State could find that a building built under a permission for a weekend and holiday chalet, but to be used only in summer, was a dwelling house. The distinctive characteristic of a dwellinghouse is its ability to afford to those who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.190567

Mckay and Walker v Secretary of State for the Environment: QBD 1989

The court considered a test as to whether a building was constructed for human habitation and not for agricultural use, using its physical layout and appearance.

Citations:

[1989] 1 PLR 7, [1989] JPL 590

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sage v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others HL 10-Apr-2003
The appellant had challenged an enforcement notice requiring him to pull down a partially built house. The issue was when the four year limitation period had commenced. Did the four year limitation period commence when the works were complete, or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196897

Fairstate Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another: CA 21 Mar 2005

The company challenged an enforcement notice. It had used premises to provide temporary sleeping accommodation for more than ten years but without a planning consent to change of use. There was a break of five months after the after the first ten year period, whilst it was used as longer term accommodation, but then it reverted to the short term use. The Court was now asked: ‘what if any breach of planning control occurs where the use to which a London flat was put changed over three stages, 1) for more than ten years as temporary sleeping accommodation which made that use lawful, but 2) with a change for about five months to longer-term residential occupation, and finally 3) reverting back for the next four years to temporary sleeping accommodation. ‘
Held: The break was sufficient to constitute a deemed material change of use so as to allow the enforcement proceedings to begin. There was nothing unfair in the Council’s policy’s and the landowners use was in breach.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Carnwath LJ, Lord Slynn of Hadley

Citations:

Times 13-Apr-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 283

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 25 57(10, Greater London (General Powers) Act 1973

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Housing

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.276353

Jeffery and Another v First Secretary of State and Another: CA 20 Jun 2007

Challenge to a discontinuance order made by the Teignbridge District Council (‘the Council’) under section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’) and confirmed by the First Secretary of State under section 103 of the Act by a decision dated 25 July 2005. The order concerned two fields just over 7 hectares in area near Dawlish Warren in Devon.

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 584

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.253508

Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment: 1977

Judges:

Forbes J

Citations:

[1977] QB 411

Statutes:

Conveyancing Act 1881 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 28-Apr-1977
The section in the 1881 Act does not apply to a quasi-easement because ‘When land is under one ownership one cannot speak in any intelligible sense of rights, or privileges, or easements being exercised over one part for the benefit of another. . .
Cited – Rysaffe Trustee Company (CI) Ltd and Another v Ataghan Ltd and others ChD 8-Aug-2006
Complex family trusts had been created over many years. Various documents were now disputed, and particularly the extent of land demised by a lease, and whether a surender of a lease had occurred. Landslides had disturbed the boundaries of the land. . .
Cited – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Wolverhampton City Council and Another SC 12-May-2010
The appellant’s land was to be taken under compulsory purchase by the Council who wished to use it to assist Tesco in the construction of a new supermarket. Tesco promised to help fund restoration of a local listed building. Sainsbury objected an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.223149

Hope v Secretary of State for the Environment: 1975

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

(1975) 31 P and CR 120

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .

Cited by:

Cited – Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd HL 28-Feb-1991
An order allowing demolition of a listed building was possible even though the building itself remained viable. The function of the courts was to validate the decision making process, not the merits of the decision.
Lord Bridge analysed the . .
Cited – Bolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 25-May-1995
There had been an application in 1986 for planning permission for a shopping centre in Trafford. There were two public enquiries, followed, as public policy changed by further representations. The plaintiff complained that the eventual decision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.198571

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 whole. The appellant had a licence from the land owner to extract materials from the remaining site, had claimed the right to make such extractions, and had already extended their operations during the appeal process. The abolition of the four year rule for change of use enforcement did not apply to mining.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Edmund Davies, Stephenson LJJ

Citations:

[1972] 3 All ER 1092

Jurisdiction:

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 – Britt v Buckinghamshire County Council QBD 1962
The four years period limiting enforcement proceedings runs from the first date at which the enforcement notice could have been served. Widgery J said: ‘If the plaintiff can . . Show that a notice in the terms of that served could, on the facts . .
Cited – Britt v Buckinghamshire County Council CA 1963
. .

Cited by:

Cited – 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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.246374

Regina v Newbury District Council and Newbury and District Agricultural Society ex parte Chieveley Parish Council: CA 23 Jul 1998

Planning authority could not reserve matters where outline approval given under General Development Order. A three year delay between the decision, and the application for judicial review was an undue delay defeating that application. Undue delay provisions applied particularly in planning cases.
Pill LJ observed that ‘a planning permission is contained in a public document which potentially confers benefit on the land to which it relates. Important decisions may be taken by public bodies and private bodies and individuals upon the strength of it, both in relation to the land itself and in the neighbourhood. A chain of events may be set in motion. It is important to good administration that, once granted, a permission should not readily be invalidated’.

Judges:

Pill LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Sep-1998, Gazette 03-Sep-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1279, [1999] PLCR 51, (1998) 10 Admin LR 676, [1998] EG 131

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 31(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Newbury District Council and Newbury and District Agricultural Society ex parte Chieveley Parish Council Admn 23-Jun-1997
Judicial review out of time against planning decision was not allowed because of the need for public administration to proceed. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Adamson and Others v Paddico (267) Ltd SC 5-Feb-2014
Land had been registered as a town or village green but wrongly so. The claimant had sought rectification, but the respondents argued that the long time elapsed after registration should defeat the request.
Held: The appeal were solely as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.144758

Regina v Surrey County Council Ex Parte Bridge Court Holdings Ltd and Others: QBD 24 Feb 2000

Land was transferred to a company but the transfer not registered. The land had the benefit of a certificate of lawfulness of existing use for waste disposal. Doubts had arisen in the local authority about the correctness of the certificate, and they revoked it. They failed to serve the new owners or an occupier of part of the land. They failed also to investigate the circumstances as advised by their officers. The revocation was set aside as Wednesbury unreasonable.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Feb-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Registered Land

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.85572

David Wilson Homes Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Another: COL 24 Feb 2000

Land was designated as being of high landscape value and included in the green belt under the new unitary development plan. The council had taken into account a similar designation under the previous plan when it was not to do so, and had created a false dichotomy in its analysis. It had also failed to give adequate reasons from departing from the recommendations of the inspector. The designation as green belt land was set aside.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Feb-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.79826

Mccarthy and others v Basildon District Council: Admn 9 May 2008

The local authority sought to remove forty families of Irish travellers and gypsies residing on unauthorised sites in their district.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 987 (Admin), [2008] 19 EG 205, [2008] NPC 59, [2008] JPL 1787

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 8178

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.267581

Toni and Guy (South) Ltd and Another v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham: Admn 11 Feb 2009

The council had served a remediation notice on the appellants. The tenants said that they occupied only the ground floor of the building, but that the notice related to other discrete parts which they did not occupy.
Held: The authority should have properly identified the actual occupiers. The notice was quashed.

Judges:

Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 203 (Admin), Times 27-Mar-2009, [2009] 7 EG 91

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.295120

Wrexham County Borough v The National Assembly of Wales, Michael Berry, Florence Berry: CA 19 Jun 2003

A traditional gypsy family had settled because of ill health, and sought to establish a caravan site. The authority claimed they were no longer to be treated as Gypsy and having the entitlement under the Act.
Held: The Act defined ‘Gypsies’ as persons of nomadic habit. It was a question of fact for each planning officer. Human rights law did not operate to alter the statutory definition. Chapman concerned enforcement measures operating against Gypsies, not whether a person was a Gypsy or not. Administrative policy is to be settled by parliament not the courts

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Jonathan Parker

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 835, Times 04-Jul-2003, Gazette 03-Jul-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chapman v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 18-Jan-2001
The question arose as to the refusal of planning permission and the service of an enforcement notice against Mrs Chapman who wished to place her caravan on a plot of land in the Green Belt. The refusal of planning permission and the enforcement . .
Cited – Mills v Cooper QBD 1967
Two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the defendant for offences under section 127 of the Highways Act 1959 namely that of being a gypsy and, without lawful excuse, camping on a highway. The first proceedings were brought in respect . .
Cited – Greenwich London Borough Council v Powell HL 1989
A person could be a gypsy for the purpose of section 16 of the 1968 Act if he led a nomadic way of life only seasonally. . .
Cited – Regina v South Hams District Council, ex parte Gibb and Another, Regina v Gloucester Cc, ex parte Davies CA 8-Jun-1994
The meaning of ‘Gypsy’ under the Act requires some element of travelling, and should include that this was associated with the means of earning a living. In applying the statutory definition of gypsies the actual words used are to be used, taking . .
Cited – Horsham District Council v The Secretary of State for the Environment and Another Admn 13-Oct-1989
The court asked whether a traditional gypsy who had lived permanently on a site for a long time, was a gypsy within section 16 and entitled to be excepted from local planning policy restraint on development.
Held: The criterion ‘nomadic way of . .
Cited – Hearne v National Assembly for Wales and Another CA 10-Nov-1999
When looking at whether a person was a gypsy so as to qualify for additional consideration, the test was to be applied at the time when the decision was made and not when the application was made. It was acknowledged that an applicant could change . .
Cited – Regina v Shropshire County Council, ex parte Bungay Admn 1991
The court upheld a planning decision that a gypsy family had retained their nomadic way of life notwithstanding that they had not travelled for many years. Fifteen years after the gypsy family had stopped travelling because of the father’s age and . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of Smith) v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council and another Admn 19-Nov-2002
The applicants sought to argue that the attempt to evict him from the caravan site he occupied infringed his article 8 and 14 rights. Though the Isaacs case had decided there was good reason to deny security, he argued that was no longer applicable, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Davis and Others v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council CA 26-Feb-2004
The claimants were travelling showmen who had purchased land, and after failing to apply for permission, moved onto the land and began to live there.
Held: The cultural identity of travelling show-people and their status, as a matter of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.183698

Orsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Ltd, Re Injunction Hearing: QBD 19 Apr 2021

Claimant’s request for an order enabling it to carry out a geophysical and geotechnical survey of an area of the North Sea in respect of which they have been granted a licence and other facilities to exploit that area of the North Sea for the purpose of construction of a wind farm.

Judges:

Mr Justice Martin Spencer

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 977 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Planning

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.662148

Corbett, Regina (on The Application of) v: CA 9 Apr 2020

The court was asked whether a local planning authority erred in law in granting planning permission for a development it found to be in conflict with development plan policies for the protection of Areas of Great Landscape Value but compliant with other relevant policies, including a policy encouraging development for tourism, and thus in accordance with the plan as a whole.

Judges:

Lord Justice Lindblom

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 508

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.650008

Jcdecaux UK Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Wandsworth Borough Council: Admn 20 Jan 2009

Application for judicial review of the decision of the defendant Borough Council to serve a notice pursuant to section 11 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995 requiring the claimant to remove an advertisement hoarding

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 129 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) (England) Regulations 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Media, Planning

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.280422

Clear Channel UK Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark: CA 13 Dec 2007

The company appealed an order refusing review of a decision requiring it to take down advertising hoardings.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1328

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

London Local Authorities Act 1995 11, Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/666) SCh 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Clear Channel UK Ltd., Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Southwark Admn 8-Dec-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Planning

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.262107

First Secretary of State and Another v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd: CA 2 Nov 2007

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Keene LJ, David Richards J

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1083

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – MR Dean and Sons (Edgware) Ltd v First Secretary of State, West End Green (Properties) Ltd Admn 11-Jan-2007
. .
Applied – Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1993
On a challenge as to the adequacy of the reasons given for a planning decision: ‘I hope I am not over-simplifying unduly by suggesting that the central issue in this case is whether the decision of the Secretary of State leaves room for genuine as . .

Cited by:

Cited – Assura Pharmacy Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v National Health Service Litigation Authority (Family Health Services Appeal Unit) CA 5-Dec-2008
The parties challenged the refusal and admission to the respective lists of pharmacies allowed to operate in the Todmorden and Freckleton districts. The judge had said that the local PCTs had departed from the appropriate ministerial guidance which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Administrative

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.261313

National Assembly for Wales v Condron and Another: CA 27 Nov 2006

The objector had successfully challenged a planning decision saying that a remark by the chairman of the planning committee demonstrated bias and an effective pre-determination of the decision. The committee supported by the developer appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The true test was set down in Porter v Magill. The words used remained consistent with merely a predispostion by the chairman to follow the inspector’s report, and the subsequent very full debate of the issues in the committee was relevant. The case should have been heard in Wales.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1573, Times 13-Dec-2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Condron v National Assembly for Wales, Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd Admn 21-Dec-2005
. .
Cited – Porter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
Cited – Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 26-Jan-2006
The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.246687

Creed-Miles, Regina (on The Application of) v Tower Bridge Yacht and Boat Co Ltd: Admn 17 Apr 2013

The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for a moveable brow platform to be placed to provide access to houseboats at moorings near his property. He said that the permission had been granted in error as to the interpretation of an exclusion zone created in a previous permission.
Held: The earlier permission had been granted on the basis that any reduction in the space allowed would be unacceptable. The drawings here did show a reduction at parts from 21m to 17m. That was not academic, and some amendment of the plans was required. The court asked the parties to return with proposals.

Judges:

Chrystoper Symons QC

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 853 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Godfrey, Regina (on The Application of) v Southwark CA 24-Apr-2012
The claimant appealed against rejection of permission to commence judicial review of the decision of the defendant to grant planning permission for a new health centre.
Held: A local authority is bound to act in the public interest and it is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472682

Stevens v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 10 Apr 2013

The court was asked as to important issues as the approach of both planning decision-makers and the court to proportionality in circumstances in which a planning decision engages the right to respect for family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular involves the rights of children.

Judges:

Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 792 (Admin), [2013] JPL 1383

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Approved – Collins v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 9-Oct-2013
The claimant, seeking permission to use land as a gypsy and travellers’ camp site, appealed against rejection of his request for the quashing of the inspector’s report approving an enforcement notice. . .
Cited – Nzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472512

Bolton Metropoitan Borough Council v Secretary of State: 1990

Judges:

Glidewell LJ

Citations:

(1990) 61 P and CR 343

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Colney Heath Parish Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 22-Apr-2009
The Council challenged the grant of planning permission after a public enquiry for a mobile home and touring caravan site for gypsy families. They said that the inspector had not taken account of their objections to its effect on the flood plain and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.342127

Adlard and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and others: CA 24 Apr 2002

It was argued that the Secretary of State should have called in a planning application so as to avoid the risk of the local planning authority acting incompatibly with article 6.
Held: The court considered the obligations of the Secretary of State: ‘The Secretary of State’s obligation under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is not himself to act incompatibly with a Convention right; he is not obliged to ensure that other public authorities themselves act compatibly.’

Judges:

Laws, Arden LJJ

Citations:

[2002] 1 WLR 2515, [2002] EWCA Civ 614

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Adlard, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others Admn 17-Jan-2002
The court dismissed a claim for judicial review of the refusal by the Secretary of State to call in, and establish a public inquiry to consider, certain applications for planning permission and listed building and conservation area consents which . .
See Also – Adlard, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others Admn 17-Jan-2002
The court dismissed a claim for judicial review of the refusal by the Secretary of State to call in, and establish a public inquiry to consider, certain applications for planning permission and listed building and conservation area consents which . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.217008

Smith v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions and others: CA 5 Mar 2003

The court distilled four principles in deciding whether an environmental impact assessment was to be required. At the outline consent stage the planning authority must have sufficient details of any impact on the environment and of any mitigation to enable it to comply with its regulation 4(2) obligation; and there will be a failure to comply with regulation 4(2) if questions relating to the significance of the impact on the environment and the effectiveness of any mitigation are left over. But it is consistent with these principles to leave final details of, for example, a landscaping scheme, to be clarified in the context of a reserved matter or by virtue of a condition.

Judges:

Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Waller Mrs Justice Black

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 262

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others Admn 19-Dec-2001
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham Admn 15-May-2003
Outline permission was granted for a large development, reserving certain matters. The applicant challenged the permission saying that the application had not included the information required under the Regulations, and the authority had failed to . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.179550

Adlard, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others: Admn 17 Jan 2002

The court dismissed a claim for judicial review of the refusal by the Secretary of State to call in, and establish a public inquiry to consider, certain applications for planning permission and listed building and conservation area consents which the local planning authority (the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham) had decided in principle to grant.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 7 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Adlard and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and others CA 24-Apr-2002
It was argued that the Secretary of State should have called in a planning application so as to avoid the risk of the local planning authority acting incompatibly with article 6.
Held: The court considered the obligations of the Secretary of . .
See Also – Adlard and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and others CA 24-Apr-2002
It was argued that the Secretary of State should have called in a planning application so as to avoid the risk of the local planning authority acting incompatibly with article 6.
Held: The court considered the obligations of the Secretary of . .
Cited – Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.168020

William Cook Estates and Northern Land Management Limited v Secretary of State for Environment and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Somerfield Stores Limited: CA 18 Mar 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 487

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .
Appeal from – William Cook Estates Limited and Northern Land Management Limited v Secretary of State for Environment, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Somerfield Stores Limited Admn 30-Jun-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143965

Wakil (T/A Orya Textiles) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham: QBD 25 May 2012

The claimant market traders objected to the proposed redevelopment of Shepherd’ Bush Market.

Judges:

Wilkie J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1411 (QB), [2013] Env LR 3, [2013] 1 PandCR 13

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Wakil (T/A Orya Textiles) and Others v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Admn 9-Oct-2013
Second claim for judicial review in which a challenge has been brought to the planning of development in Shepherd’s Bush in west London. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472250

Buckinghamshire County Council and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport: Admn 15 Mar 2013

The claimants challenged the strategy published by the government for the development of the propose HS2 railway line, saying that it required first a strategic environmentalimpact assessment under European law.
Held: The claim failed. The strategy as published did not constrain in any way the decision making processes which might follow: ‘The very concept of a framework, rules, criteria or policy, which guided the outcome of an application for development consent, as a plan which required Strategic Impact Assessment even before development project Environmental Impact Assessment, presupposed that the plan will have an effect on the approach which has to be considered at the development consent stage, and that that effect will be more than merely persuasive by its quality and detail, but guiding and telling because of its stated role in the hierarchy of relevant considerations. That simply is not the case here.’

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 481 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 122, [2013] PTSR D25

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (Parliament and Council Directive 2001/42/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At Admn – HS2 Action Alliance Ltd and Others v Secretary of State for Transport CA 24-Jul-2013
The claimants challenged the plan for a major railway development, saying that an environmental impact assessment should have been made first.
Held: (Sullivan LJ dissenting) The claimant’s appeal failed. The strategy as proposed was not such . .
At First Instance – HS2 Action Alliance Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another SC 22-Jan-2014
The government planned to promote a large scale rail development (HS2), announcing this in a command paper. The main issues, in summary, were, first, whether it should have been preceded by strategic environmental assessment, under the relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Transport

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471933