Category: Planning

Camden Lock (London) Ltd v London Borough of Camden: Admn 16 Mar 2007

The claimant sought to challenge the UDP of the defendant saying that it failed to recognise the desirability of the continuation of a market which it operated. It had been an open market continued under temporary permissions for several years, and the claimant wanted to provide a building for that purpose. London Underground wanted the land to expand a station.
Held: The plan failed to follow the evidence: ‘It is difficult to see that it was proper for him, at least without some very convincing reasons, to fail to include the market use as a preferred use. Indeed, on the claimant’s site it seems clear that it should be the preferred use if any use other than for the station is possible. And the TWO inspector and the First Secretary of State make clear that the possibility of returning to that use, at least after any necessary temporary break, is regarded as important.’ The entry should be cancelled.
Collins J
[2007] EWHC 495 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.250310

Postermobile plc v London Borough of Brent: Admn 11 Nov 1997

At a meeting with Council Officers, the Appellants were told that they did not need consent for advertisements under the advertisements regulations. In reliance on that advice advertisements were erected and the Council then prosecuted the Appellants for not obtaining the necessary consent. The defendants appealed a refusal of a stay for abuse of process.
Held: The court commented on the absence of a warning letter from the prosecutor. The opportunity of challenging a prosecution was a possible abuse of process.
Schiemann LJ, Moses J
[1997] EWHC Admin 1002, Times 08-Dec-1997
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Department of The Environment for Northern Ireland CANI 6-Sep-2011
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.251559

MR Dean and Sons (Edgware) Ltd v First Secretary of State, West End Green (Properties) Ltd: Admn 11 Jan 2007

[2007] EWHC 1 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
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? . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – First Secretary of State and Another v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd CA 2-Nov-2007
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.247679

Martin Grant Homes Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Wealden District Council: Admn 4 Mar 2005

Where a council had already published proposals for its new local plan before the new planning Act was to come into effect, the council had a duty not to abandon the plan but had to apply the appropriate transitional provisions.
[2005] EWHC 453 (Admin), Times 18-Mar-2005
Bailii
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Wealden District Council v Martin Grant Homes Ltd and Another CA 31-Oct-2005
The council had published a proposed revised local plan but withdrew it in the light of the new Planning Act.
Held: The freedom of a council to withdraw a revised plan was acknowledged. The requirement was only that the action be rational in . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.223905

Barbara Rees Ltd v Cardiff County Council: Admn 3 Jul 2006

The defendant estate agency appealed its conviction for continuing to display ‘To Let’ boards for more than the permitted time. The prosecutor relied upon the signs indicating that the property had been let.
Held: The fact that the sign said that the property had been let was prima facie evidence that it had been let, and could found the conviction. If the property had not in fact been let, or was let only subject to contract, the defendant could have brought evidence to contradict the signs. It had not done so.
[2006] EWHC 1617 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 224, Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992
England and Wales

Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.242956

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

The appellants appealed a refusal of an inspector to set aside an enforcement notice with regard to the alteration of use of an outbuilding to a residence. He asserted that no enforcement action having been taken for four years, the enforcement could not proceed. There had been use over a longer period, but there had been a break. In fact, the Inspector had, too gently, expressed his disbelief of the appellant’s evidence. There was no use for the period asserted and the appeal failed.
HC Admin 803
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174(2), 171B(2)

Updated: 25 December 2020; Ref: scu.137748

Cambridge City Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Milton Park Investments Ltd: CA 1992

(1992) 64 P and CR 257
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Save Britain’s Heritage, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 14-May-2010
The claimant challenged the order allowing the demolition of a disused listed building saying that the Direction was contrary to European law in not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Secretary of State said an EIA was not . .
[2010] EWHC 979 (Admin), [2010] NPC 57, [2010] JPL 1429, [2011] Env LR 6

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.415075

Maiden Outdoor Advertising Ltd , Regina (on the Application Of) v Lambeth: Admn 9 May 2003

Notices had been issued by the defendant local planning authority under section 11 of the 1995 Act.
Held: The notices had to be quashed for several reasons. The court considered whether there was a deemed consent: ‘It seems to me that, as things stand, it is necessary to consider in relation to any particular site whether the provision of illumination does amount to a substantial alteration in the manner of the use of the site. It may or it may not, and that will depend upon the effect of the illumination in any particular case.
It is to be remembered that the approach under the Act, and under the Regulations, is that powers should be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. If there is a deemed consent to an advertisement, it seems to me that it is relevant to consider, as things stand, whether the illumination does have an effect on amenity or does create a danger. If it does not in any way, it is difficult to see how it could properly be regarded within the context of the approach to construction that should be adopted of these Regulations as a substantial alteration.
It is pertinent in my judgment to have regard to the purpose behind the need for control, which is to further the interests of amenity and to avoid any danger. It may well be thought by Lambeth, and it may be perfectly reasonable so to believe, that the advertisements, even as they are, are contrary to amenity. That is a matter which may have to be considered in the future. But as the matter stands under the Regulations, there is nothing positive that could be done unless it can be established within the terms of Regulation 8 that there is a substantial effect on amenity, or a danger resulting from this. It would be right in those circumstances to consider whether the illumination creates any additional adverse effect.’
References: [2003] EWHC 1224 (Admin), [2004] JPL 820
Links: Bailii
Judges: Collins J
Statutes: London Local Authorities Act 1995 11
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.185341

Regina (on the Application of Prytherch) v Conwy Borough Council: Admn 19 Oct 2001

The claimant seeks a quashing order in respect of the decision of the defendant to grant conditional planning permission for the construction of a landfill leachate treatment plant within the former quarry situated at Llandulas which has, for a number of years, been lawfully used a waste disposal site.
References: [2001] EWHC Admin 869
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.167245

Regina (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others: Admn 19 Dec 2001

References: [2001] EWHC Admin 1170
Links: Bailii
Judges: Mr Justice Silber
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex Parte Milne (2) QBD 31-Jul-2000 (Gazette 31-Aug-00, [2001] JPL 470, [2001] Env LR 406, (2001) 81 PandCR 365)
    Developers submitted applications for outline permission for the development of a business park. The applicant sought to quash the grant on the basis that the environmental assessment was insufficiently detailed, and contained reserved matters, and . .

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.168013

GPS Estates Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: ChD 28 Feb 2014

References: [2014] EWHC 806 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Collins J
Ratio: Appeal against the decision of an Inspector who upheld an Enforcement Notice issued by Luton Borough Council and the breach of planning control was the unauthorised use of a site for open airport-related parking and vehicles. There were spaces for 200 such vehicles.

Last Update: 04 February 2019
Ref: 545124

Regina v North Hertfordshire District Council, Ex parte Sullivan; 19 May 1981

References: [1981] JPL 752
Coram: Comyn J
The court was asked whether an extension of a listed building which involved the demolition of parts of the listed building constituted demolition within the meaning of the Act which required the proposal to be notified to various interested bodies by the local planning authority.
Held: The dominant word in the provisions about demolition, alteration and extension was the word ‘demolition,’ especially where, under the interpretation section, demolition was deemed to refer not only to a building but also to part of a building.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Shimizu (UK) Ltd -v- Westminster City Council HL (Gazette 12-Mar-97, Times 11-Feb-97, House of Lords, Bailii, [1997] 1 All ER 481, [1997] UKHL 3, [1997] 1 WLR 168)
    The removal of a listed building’s chimney stacks was an alteration allowing a claim for compensation. The phrases ‘alteration’ and ‘demolition’ are mutually exclusive. Although part of a building may be a listed building, a part of a listed . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 20-Nov-15 Ref: 226087

The Ecclesiastical Commissioners For England v The Vestry of The Parish of St James And St John, Clerkenwell; 25 May 1861

References: [1861] EngR 620, (1861) 3 De G F & J 688, (1861) 45 ER 1045
Links: Commonlii
The exceptions expressed in the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 90, and 19 & 20 Vict. c. 112, s. 3 (the Metropolis Local Management Acts), do not exempt the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, acting under the Church Builditig Acts, from the provisions of the first-mentioned Act, and vestries have, under the first-mentioned Act, authority to pull down such portions of churches, as well as of other buildings, as transgress the provisions of that Act.

Uprichard and others v Fife Council and St Andrews Bay Developments Ltd for Judicial Review andC: SCS 31 Mar 2000

References: [2000] ScotCS 90, [2001] Env LR 122, 2000 SCLR 949
Links: Bailii, ScotC
Coram: Lord Bonomy
Six petitioners sought to challenge the grant of planning permission by the responders allowing a commercial hotel development in St Andrews, which, they said, would adversely affect the landscape and otherwise.

Aston v Secretary of State for the Environment; 9 Apr 1973

References: Unreported, 09 April 1973
Coram: Lord Widgery CJ
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 part of the land which was absorbed in the new building and covered by the new building is merged in it; you start with a new planning unit which has no permitted planning use except those derived from the planning permission, if any, and from section 33(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which allows such a building in many instances to be used for the purpose for which it was designed.’
Statutes: Town and Country Planning Act 1971 33(2)
This case is cited by:

  • Approved – Newbury District Council -v- Secretary of State for the Environment HL ([1981] AC 578, [1980] 1 All ER 731, [1980] 2 WLR 379)
    Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be imposed for a planning purpose and . .
  • Cited – Jennings Motors Ltd -v- Secretary of State for the Environment and another CA ([1982] 1 All ER 471, [1982] QB 541, [1982] 2 WLR 131, (1981) 43 P & CR 316)
    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.

Cooper v The Board of Works For The Wandsworth Destrict; 21 Apr 1863

References: [1863] EngR 424, (1863) 14 CB NS 180, (1863) 143 ER 414
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Erie CJ, Willes J, Byles J
Where a land-owner owner had failed to give proper notice to the Board, the Board had, under the 1855 Act, power to demolish any building he had erected and recover the cost from him. The plaintiff said that the Board had used that power without giving the owner an opportunity of being heard. The Board maintained that their discretion to order demolition was not a judicial discretion and that any appeal should have been to the Metropolitan Board of Works.
Held: The claim succeeded. Erie CJ said that the power was subject to a qualification repeatedly recognised that no man is to be deprived of his property without his having an opportunity of being heard. This rule had been applied to: ‘many exercises of power which in common understanding would not be at all a more judicial proceeding than would be the act of the district board in ordering a house to be pulled down.’
Willes J said that the rule was ‘of universal application and founded upon the plainest principles of justice.’ and ‘I apprehend that a tribunal which is by law invested with power to affect the property of one Her Majesty’s subjects is bound to give such subject an opportunity of being heard before it proceeds, and that rule is of universal application an founded upon the plainest principles of justice.’
Byles J said that ‘although there are no positive words in a statute requiring that the party shall be heard yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature.’
Statutes: Metropolis Local Management Act 1855
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Bank Mellat -v- HM Treasury QBD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 1332 (QB), WLRD, [2010] WLR (D) 148)
    The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of . .
  • Cited – Lumba (WL) -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department SC (Bailii, [2011] UKSC 12, Bailii Summary, SC, UKSC 2010/0062, UKSC 2010/0063, SC Summary)
    The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
  • Cited – Bank Mellat -v- Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC (Bailii Summary, WLRD, Bailii, [2013] UKSC 39, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 580, [2013] 3 WLR 179, [2013] HRLR 30, [2013] 4 All ER 533, [2013] WLR(D) 244, WLRD, UKSC 2011/0040, SC Sumary, SC)
    The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
  • Cited – Osborn -v- The Parole Board SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 61, [2013] 3 WLR 1020, [2014] HRLR 1, [2013] WLR(D) 374, [2014] 1 All ER 369, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2011/0147, SC Summary, SC)
    Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .

Grampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland; CS 1983

References: 1984 SC 1 13, (1983) 47 P & CR 540
Coram: Lord Dunpark
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.’
This case is cited by:

Arthur Sidney Petter; Monica Mary Harris v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Chichester District Council: CA 15 Mar 1999

References: [1999] EWCA Civ 975, (2000) 79 P and CR 214
Links: Bailii
Coram: Nourse LJ, Buxton LJ, Sedley LJ
This case cites:

This case is cited by: