Category: Planning

Carter Commercial Developments v Bedford Borough Council: Admn 27 Jul 2001

The claimant brought proceedings in the Administrative Court by way of Part 8 claim seeking to establish by way of declaration that a planning appeal rejected by the Secretary of State in August 2000 as being out of time had in fact been commenced within time.
Held: The proceedings had been brought in that form simply in order to circumvent the time limit imposed by Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules and ought therefore to be struck out. It was an abuse of process to seek to decide an issue of public law by means of a private law action such as an application for a declaration.

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC (Admin) 669

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority QBD 22-Jun-2004
The claimants sought a declaration. Planning permission had been confirmed for four mineral extraction sites by letter in 1952. In 1996, two were listed as now being dormant. The claimant said the letter of 1952 created on single planning permision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Administrative

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.228575

Brent London Borough Council v Patel and Another: ChD 30 Nov 2000

An improvement grant made in respect of a house in multiple occupation, became repayable in whole, where the owner of the freehold took up residence in any part of the property. In applying for the grant the owner certified that part of the property would be available for active to someone not a family member. The certificates were confusing, but the words of the section did not allow the possibility of the landlord occupying any part of the house either himself or through a member of his own family.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Dec-2000, Times 30-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Local Government and Housing Act 1989 122, 106(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Planning, Housing

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.78573

Beard, Regina v: CACD 10 May 1996

The defendant appealed against his conviction. He had pleaded guilty after a ruling as to the law. Hobhouse LJ said: ‘The meaning of section 179 is clear and unambiguous. Where it is within the power of the owner of the land to comply with the notice without the assistance of others, no question of a defence under subsection (3) arises. Before a defence can arise under that subsection, the owner must show that compliance with the notice is not within his own unaided powers, otherwise no question of his having to secure compliance with the notice can arise. Thus, if there are other persons in occupation of the land, it is enough if he has done everything he could reasonably be expected to do to secure that they comply with the notice. If compliance would require, for example, some engineering work and the owner is not himself able to do that work and does not have the resources to employ another to do it, he will have a defence if he can show that he did everything he could reasonably be expected to do to secure compliance with the notice. These examples suffice to illustrate the application of subsection (3). We accept, as does counsel for the prosecution, that the phrase ‘everything he could be expected to do’ must implicitly be read as ‘reasonably expected’. It applies an objective criterion of reasonableness, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, in particular any disabilities to which the owner of the land is subject.’

Judges:

Hobhouse LJ, Ebsworth, Sachs JJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Crim 396, [1997] 1 PLR 64

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wood, Regina v CACD 25-May-2001
The appellant was a gipsy. He had bought land and occupied it with his family but without planning permission. He now appealed against a conviction for failing to comply with an enforcement notice. He appealed saying that he had not been allowed to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Planning

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.513558

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 only if a failure to keep a promise is so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power that it might override other considerations

Judges:

Pill, Moore-Bick, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 500

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Planning

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452898

The Manydown Company Ltd v Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council: Admn 17 Apr 2012

The claimant sought judicial review of the Council’s adoption of planning strategy documents.
Held: The request was granted.

Judges:

Lindblom J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 977 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Localism Act 2011

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex parte Balchin Admn 25-Oct-1996
The petitioners complained that the Secretary of State for Transport was guilty of maladministration in confirming Road Orders without seeking an assurance from Norfolk County Council that the Balchins would be given adequate compensation for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Planning

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452706

McDonagh, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hackney: Admn 15 Feb 2012

Application for judicial review brought by Mrs Anne McDonagh, who challenges the policy of the defendant, the London Borough of Hackney (‘Hackney’) in respect of the allocation of pitches on sites authorised and designated for use by the travelling community.

Judges:

Kenneth Parker J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 373 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Planning, Housing

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452683

Oakimber Ltd v Elmbridge Borough Council: CA 1991

Beldam LJ said: ‘On this reasoning it is unnecessary to consider the interesting argument addressed to the court that development carried out in breach of conditions can be regarded as development to which the permission related and whether for the purposes of planning permission conditions can properly be regarded as ‘conditions precedent’. But if it had been necessary to do so, I would have expressed my agreement in principle with the view of Woolf J (as he then was) in Etheridge v Secretary of State for the Environment that development carried out without permission or commenced in contravention of conditions of a permission would not be development to which the permission related because it was development carried out in breach of planning control and so not permitted. However the importance and nature of the condition and the extent of and reasons for breach may in some circumstances be relevant considerations and I would prefer to reserve an opinion on the question for a case in which it is necessary to decide it.’

Judges:

Purchas, Taylor, Beldam LJJ

Citations:

(1991) 62 PandCR 594

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Etheridge v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 13-Oct-1983
The landowner had obtained outline permission but with details reserved. Later full permission was granted, but the authority refused to approve matters which had already been approved in the original outline permission, saying they were out of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hart Aggregates Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Hartlepool Borough Council Admn 26-Apr-2005
. .
Cited – FG Whitley and Sons Co Ltd v Secretary of State for Wales CA 1992
The plaintiff had obtained conditional planning permission. It applied for approval of the meeting of the conditions but failed to receive a repy and had commenced work anyway. The authority then said that because the works had been begun before . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.442413

Lord Luke of Pavenham v Minister of Housing and Local Government: CA 1968

The court considered a planning appeal where the Minister had departed from the the inspector’s decision. The plaintiff challenged the decision on the basis that the Minister had differed from the Inspector’s findings on ‘matters of fact’ under 17(5)(a) and therefore should have afforded the parties the opportunity to make representations.
Held: Lord Denning distinguished between ‘findings of fact’ and ‘expressions of opinion on the planning merits’. The Minister was entitled to differ from the Inspector’s opinion without notifying the parties under the Rules.
Davies LJ explained that the Inspector’s conclusions were not ‘findings of fact’; they were the reasons for his recommendations. If the Minister was of the opinion that the Inspector had wrongly applied planning policy to the proven and observed facts, then it was his function so to decide.

Judges:

Lord Denning

Citations:

[1968] 1 QB 172

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wind Prospect Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 5-Dec-2014
The claimant appealed against refusal of permission to erect a six turbine wind farm. The inspector had recommended the plan, but the defendant had decided against it.
Held: The claim failed. The planning inspector’s report is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.539761

Threadneedle Property Investments Ltd and Another v Southwark Borough Council and Another: Admn 30 Mar 2012

Lindblom J set out three statements of the principles relevant to the issue of reasons: ‘1) A local planning authority’s obligation to give summary reasons when granting permission is not to be equated with the Secretary of State’s obligation to give reasons in a decision letter when allowing or dismissing a planning appeal. By their very nature, a local planning authority’s summary reasons for granting permission do not present a full account of the local planning authority’s decision-making process (per Sullivan LJ R (Siraj) v. Kirklees Metropolitan Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1286 at paragraph [14]).
(2) A fuller summary of the reasons for granting planning permission may well be necessary ‘where members have granted planning permission contrary to a planning officer’s recommendation in order to allow members of the public to ascertain the lawfulness of the decision’ (per Sullivan LJ R (Siraj) v. Kirklees Metropolitan Council (supra) paragraph [16]).
(3) The fundamental test is ‘whether an interested person could see why planning permission is granted and what conclusion was reached on the principle issues’ (per Ouseley J in R (Midcounties Co-operative Ltd) v. Wyre Forest District Council’

Judges:

Lindblom J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 855 (Admin), [2013] Env LR 1

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd Admn 22-Aug-2013
The campaign company sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent granting permission to develop nearby land as a golf course.
Held: The application succeeded. The Secretary of State in preserving the effect of certain policies had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452414

Regina (SDR) v Bristol City Council: Admn 2 Apr 2012

Land was proposed to be developed as a football stadium. Local opponents said that the land had been used as for recreational purpose by locals for many years and sought its registration as a village green. The inspector agreed, but the council proposed registration of part only, leaving sufficient space for the stadium. Judicial review was now sought of that decision. An original objector stood aside and application was made for substitution by another (there had been threats and intimidation against objectors).

Judges:

Underhill J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 859 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Land

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452415

Berky, Regina (on The Application of) v Newport City Council and Others: CA 29 Mar 2012

Appeal against refusal of permission to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of a planning permission given by Newport City Council for a mixed development including the construction of a food store, and the restoration of a former workingmen’s institute ‘the Institute’, on land at Lliswerry, in the eastern part of Newport.

Judges:

Carnwath, Moore-Bick LJJ, Sir Richard Buxton

Citations:

[2013] PTSR D1, [2012] WLR(D) 128, [2012] EWCA Civ 378

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452362

Exmouth Marina Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another: Admn 3 Jun 2003

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1500 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Explained – Taylor and Sons (Farms) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Three Rivers District Council CA 31-Jul-2001
Over a long period of time the applicants had deposited large quantities of waste on their land to hard standings and tracks. They were served with enforcement notices alleging a change from agricultural use, to agricultural use with waste deposit, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.185371

Walton v The Scottish Ministers: SCS 29 Feb 2012

The reclaimer challenged the making of several orders redesignating roads around the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route.

Judges:

Lord Clarke, Lord Bonomy, Lord Philip

Citations:

[2012] ScotCS CSIH – 19, [2012] CSIH 19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Roads (Scotland) Act 1984

Citing:

At Outer House – Walton and Others v The Scottish Ministers SCS 11-Aug-2011
Outer House – Opinion . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Planning, European

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451731

Coventry (T/A RDC Promotions and Another v Lawrence and Others: CA 27 Feb 2012

The appellants, owners of a motor sport racing circuit, appealed against a finding that their activities constituted a nuisance, given that they had planning permissions for the use.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had erred in holding that the actual use of the Stadium and the Track over a number of years, with planning permission, or a CLEUD, could not be taken into account when the assessing the character of the locality for the purpose of determining whether an activity is a nuisance.
Lewison LJ expressed a provisional obiter view that, contrary to the judge’s conclusion, it is possible to obtain by prescription a right to commit what would otherwise be a nuisance.

Judges:

Mummery, Jackson, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 26, [2012] Env LR 28, [2012] 1 WLR 2127, [2012] 3 All ER 168, [2012] WLR(D) 49, 141 Con LR 79, [2012] 1 EGLR 165, [2012] 10 EG 88, [2012] PTSR 1505

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
Appeal from – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
See Also – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Planning, Land

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451500

Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd: CA 19 Mar 2012

The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims for nuisance in the form of smells emanating from the respondent neighbour’s waste processing plant. The defendant relied upon the grant of planning permission.
Held: The cause of action in nuisance is one for interference with property rights, loss of amenity value and the right to claim damages for it does not turn on any exceptional sensitivity or insensitivity of the person entitled to exclusive possession. Carnwath LJ said: ‘The common law of nuisance has co-existed with statutory controls, albeit less sophisticated, since the 19th century There is no principle that the common law should ‘march with’ a statutory scheme covering similar subject matter Short of express or implied statutory authority to commit a nuisance . ., there is no basis, in principle or authority, for using such a statutory scheme to cut down private law rights’
Carnwath LJ set out the law of nuisance in this sort of case: ‘In my view this case is governed by conventional principles of the law of nuisance, which are well-settled, and can be found in any of the leading text books. Thus, Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (20th edn, 2010) Ch20, the third category of nuisance is that caused by a person ‘unduly interfering with his neighbour in the comfortable and convenient enjoyment of land’ . . Relevant to this case are the following rules. (i) There is no absolute standard; it is a question of degree whether the interference is sufficiently serious to constitute a nuisance. That is to be decided by reference to all the circumstances of the case . . (ii) There must be a real interference with the comfort or convenience of living, according to the standards of the average man . . or in the familiar words of Knight Bruce VC: ‘not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people.’ (See Walter v Self [1851] 4 DeG and Sm 315 at 322, [1851] 64 ER 849 at 852). (iii) The character of the neighbourhood area must be taken into account. Again in familiar nineteenth century language, ‘what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey’. (. . Thesiger LJ, Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 ChD 852 at 856) . . iv) The duration of an interference is an element in assessing its actionability, but it is not a decisive factor; a temporary interference which is substantial will be an actionable nuisance . . (v) Statutory authority may be a defence to an action in nuisance, but only if statutory authority to commit a nuisance is expressed or necessarily implied. The latter will apply where a statutory authority authorises the user of land in a way which will ‘inevitably’ involve a nuisance, even if every reasonable precaution is taken . . (vi) The public utility of the activity in question is not a defence . . ..’

Judges:

Arden, Carnwath, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 312, [2012] WLR(D) 86, [2012] 3 All ER 380, [2012] 2 PandCR 6, [2012] HLR 28, [2013] QB 455, [2012] 13 EG 90, (2012) 141 Con LR 1, [2012] PTSR 1527, [2012] 2 EGLR 157, [2012] 3 WLR 795, [2012] BLR 275

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd TCC 15-May-2009
The Claimants were the residents of a housing estate who applied for a Group Litigation Order to pursue their claim of nuisance and negligence against a waste contractor. The Defendant requested the disclosure of their ‘after the event’ insurance . .
Appeal from – Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No.2) TCC 2-Oct-2009
. .
See Also – Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No 3) TCC 19-Apr-2011
The claimants sought damages in nuisance saying that the defendant’s waster recycling plant was causing odorous pollution of their nearby homes. . .
Costs judgment below – Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [No 4] TCC 19-Apr-2011
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Merthyr Tydfil Car Auction Ltd v Thomas and Another CA 11-Jul-2013
The company appealed against an award of 9,000 pounds for nuisance in the form of excessive noise and fumes.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘the grant of planning permission cannot authorise the commission of a nuisance but it may, following its . .
Cited – Thomas and Another v Merthyr Tydfil Car Auction Ltd QBD 8-Oct-2012
The claimant complained of nuisance from adjoining car auctions works belonging to the defendants. . .
Cited – Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Planning

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.452171

Welsh Ministers and Another v RWE Npower Renewables Ltd: CA 15 Mar 2012

Appeal by the Welsh ministers against the quashing of their decision refusing the respondent’s application for planning permission for a wind farm.

Judges:

Pill, Elias, Pitchford LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 311, [2012] Env LR 29

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wind Prospect Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 5-Dec-2014
The claimant appealed against refusal of permission to erect a six turbine wind farm. The inspector had recommended the plan, but the defendant had decided against it.
Held: The claim failed. The planning inspector’s report is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.452137

Cusack v London Borough of Harrow: CA 7 Dec 2011

The claimant sought compensation after the Borough ordered fencing to be erected along the roadside so as to obstruct vehicular access to and from his premises. If the action was taken under section 66(2) and not section 80, then Lewison LJ said that the council’s proposed action and the reason for taking it ‘fall squarely within section 66(2)’, and accordingly section 80 did not apply to the facts of the case

Judges:

Ward, Aikens, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1514, [2012] RTR 19, [2012] PTSR 970

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 66(2) 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Planning, Road Traffic

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.449856

Leger-Davey and Another v First Secretary of State and others: Admn 1 Mar 2004

Objection to mobile phone mast

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 512 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – St Leger-Davey and Another v First Secretary of State and others CA 1-Dec-2004
The applicants challenged permission granted to erect mobile phone masts, saying that the operators should have made application to the County Court.
Held: the provisions referred to allowed the company to follow a county court procedure where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.194917

McIntosh v Aberdeenshire Council: 1999

Lord MacLean upheld the validity of a planning obligation to build an estate road to serve the owner’s development of his land and also to facilitate the development of neighbouring land in third party ownership

Judges:

Lord MacLean

Citations:

1999 SLT 93

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

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: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.646125

Elsick Development Co Ltd v Aberdeen City and Shire Stratetgic Development Planning Authority and Another: SCS 29 Apr 2016

(First Division, Inner House) ED appealed from the adoption of a supplementary guidance (SG).
Held: The appeal succeeded. The First Division upheld three of the four grounds of appeal advanced. First, the court upheld the submission that the Authority had failed to comply with national policy on the use of planning obligations, holding that it was a fundamental principle of planning law, which was reflected in the Circular, that a condition attached to the grant of a planning permission, whether contained in a planning obligation or otherwise, must fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development. The First Division accepted the distinction, which the reporter had drawn, between the sharing of costs among developments which had cumulatively required a particular investment in transport infrastructure on the one hand and the funding of a basket of measures, not all of which were relevant to every development. The court referred to the original Table 7.2 and held that many of the planned developments had no impact at all on several of the proposed infrastructure interventions. It added: ‘. . this applies to both Elsick and Blackdog relative to a number of the interventions. In respect of others the impact is de minimis’. The result was that the additional sentence in the SG about complying with the guidance in the Circular, which was added at the request of the Scottish Ministers, could not prevent the obligation to contribute to the Fund, in which contributions were pooled, from breaching the Circular. The First Division also upheld Elsick’s submission that there was no rational basis for relying on Table 3 of Appendix 2 of the SG (ie the revised table 7.2 of the CTA) to support the contention that a particular intervention was made necessary by reason of either a particular development or the cumulative effect of it along with other developments.

Judges:

Lrd Carloway

Citations:

[2016] ScotCS CSIH – 28, 2016 GWD 19-347

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 75, Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.564408

IM Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield District Council and Others: Admn 18 Jul 2014

Application by the claimant for judicial review of a decision by the defendant dated 28th January 2014 to endorse the main modifications to the draft Lichfield Local Plan Strategy. The claimant seeks a quashing order of the decision.

Judges:

Patterson J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2440 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.535234

Fife Council v Uprichard: SCS 10 Nov 2011

The applicant had had rejected her challenge to the planning policy of the respondens. The court now considered the Council’s motion for expenses.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Hodge, Lord McEwan

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 77, [2011] CSIH 77

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

Citing:

See Also – Uprichard v Order of The Scottish Ministers SCS 30-Jul-2010
The petitioners soiught to object to the decision of the Ministers to approve a structure plan proposed for the future development of St Andrews.
Held: The request was refused. . .
Principal judgment – Uprichard v The Scottish Ministers and Another SCS 7-Sep-2011
The applicant sought a reclaiming motion against the local council’s Structure plan.
Held: The request was refused. Lord Justice Clerk Gill said: ‘A structure plan is that part of the statutory development plan that sets out the overall . .

Cited by:

See Also – Uprichard v Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellants challenged the adequacy of the reasons given by the respondents in approving planning policies, in particular the structure plan, adopted by Fife Council for the future development of St Andrews. An independent expert’s report had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Planning, Costs

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449773

Sage v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another: CA 28 Jun 2001

Question of the proper approach at law to the question of what amounts to ‘substantial completion’ of operations within the enforcement provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1100, [2002] JPL 352, [2001] 3 PLR 107, [2002] 1 P and CR 38, [2001] 27 EGCS 133

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.218262

City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland and Another; Same v Same (Conjoined Appeals): HL 31 Oct 1997

The Listed buildings registers are to be read consistently; the trading level is a material consideration in listed buildings consent applications. The weight to be given to a material consideration once identified was a matter of judgment for the decision maker alone.
Lord Clyde said: ‘In the practical application of section 18A, it will obviously be necessary for the decision-maker to consider the development plan, identify any provisions in it which are relevant to the questions before him, and make a proper interpretation of them. His decision will be open to challenge if he fails to have regard to a policy in the development plan which is relevant to the application or fails properly to interpret it. He will also have to consider whether the development proposed in the application before him does or does not accord with the development plan. There may be some points in the plan which support the proposal but there may be some considerations pointing in the opposite direction. He will require to assess all of these and then decide whether in the light of the whole plan the proposal does or does not accord with it. He will also have to identify all the other material considerations which are relevant to the application and to which he should have regard. He will then have to note which of them support the application and which of them do not, and he will have to assess the weight to be given to all of these considerations. He will have to decide whether there are considerations of such weight as to indicate that the development plan should not be accorded the priority which the statute has given to it. And having weighed these considerations and determined these matters he will require to form his opinion on the disposal of the application. If he fails to take account of some material consideration or takes account of some consideration which is irrelevant to the application his decision will be open to challenge. But the assessment of the considerations can only be challenged on the ground that it is irrational or perverse.’
As to the need to identify the property, he said: ‘the form of notice does not require a description of the building to be given. The assumption is that the name of the building will be sufficient to identify what is in the list.’

Judges:

Lord Clyde, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

Gazette 05-Nov-1997, Times 31-Oct-1997, [1997] UKHL 38, [1997] 1 WLR 1447, [1998] 1 All ER 174, 1998 SC (HL) 33

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 18A

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex Parte Milne (2) QBD 31-Jul-2000
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 . .
Cited – Barratt and Another v Ashford Borough Council CA 25-Jan-2011
The house owners disputed whether at the time they had carried out certain works, the house had been a listed building, saying it had been ommitted from the official list. The respondent said that it had appeared but admitted that the designation . .
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 7-Feb-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a statement and letter by the respondent making a material consideration for planning authorities the intended revocation by the Respondent of Regional Spatial Strategies. The effect would be to allow the . .
Cited – Hinds, Regina (on The Application of) v Blackpool Council Admn 17-Mar-2011
The council had resolved to grant planning permission for a development, but before the permission was actually granted the Secretary of State had written to planning authorities saying that he intended to abolish the ‘Regional Spatial Strategies’. . .
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 27-May-2011
The respondent had circularised local authorities to say that when assessing future local housing needs a proper material consideration was the proposed Localism Bill which would lead to the replacement of ‘Regional Spatial Strategies’ on which such . .
Cited – Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd Admn 22-Aug-2013
The campaign company sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent granting permission to develop nearby land as a golf course.
Held: The application succeeded. The Secretary of State in preserving the effect of certain policies had . .
Approved – Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council SC 21-Mar-2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not . .
Cited – Wind Prospect Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 5-Dec-2014
The claimant appealed against refusal of permission to erect a six turbine wind farm. The inspector had recommended the plan, but the defendant had decided against it.
Held: The claim failed. The planning inspector’s report is the . .
Cited – Newsmith Stainless Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions Admn 1-Feb-2001
Application was made to quash an inspector’s decision.
Held: An inspector’s decision was not to be challenged as to its facts. In any case where the expert tribunal is the fact finding body the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness or . .
Cited – G v Scottish Ministers and Another SC 18-Dec-2013
The 2003 Act had been intended to make provision for those who had been in long term mental health carse, but would not need such continued are but were not either ready to survive without continuing support in the community. The claimant had been . .
Cited – Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The Court was asked as to the proper interpretation of paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework: ‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for . .
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: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.79147

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

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.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 806 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.545124

Inter-Environnement Bruxelles v Gouvernement de la Region de Bruxelles-Capitale: ECJ 17 Nov 2011

ECJ Opinion – French Text – Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programs on the environment – Applicability of the Directive in a proceeding to repeal all or part of a plan of land use – plans and programs required by laws and regulations

Judges:

Juliane Kokott AG

Citations:

C-567/10, [2011] EUECJ C-567/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2001/42/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Inter-Environnement Bruxelles v Gouvernement de la Region de Bruxelles-Capitale ECJ 22-Mar-2012
ECJ Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Concept of plans and programmes ‘which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative . .
Cited – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Planning

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.448716

Morbaine Ltd and Another v First Secretary of State and others: Admn 19 Jul 2004

Judges:

Mr Justice Blackburne

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1708 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Canterbury Council ex parte Springimage Limited 1993
The court granted locus standi to an applicant to object to a grant of planning permission by way of an application for judicial review. The applicant had an option to purchase land nearby.
David Keene QC said: ‘It seems to me to be clear that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.226896

Barker, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Bromley and Another: CA 8 Feb 2001

Judges:

Dyson LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 158

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Barker, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Bromley CA 23-Nov-2001
The court considered when time began to run for an application for judicial review where the question arose in the context of an outline planning permission granted subject to the approval of reserved matters.
The claimant challenged proposed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.217966

Regina v Warwickshire County Council ex parte Powergen Plc: CA 30 Apr 1997

Application for leave to appeal – interaction of planning system and section 278.

Judges:

Hobhouse LJ, Schiemann LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1568

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 278

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Warwickshire County Council Ex Parte Powergen Plc QBD 9-Jan-1997
The power to incorporate highway works in planning agreements is limited to subject land. Forbes J said: ‘It is common ground that the new Section 278 was intended to fit into and play its part in the overall legislative system for the controlled . .

Cited by:

Leave to Appeal granted – Regina v Warwickshire County Council ex parte Powergen Plc CA 31-Jul-1997
The council as highway authority had objected to a development on the grounds of road safety. The application was subsequently approved by the Secretary of State, but the Council sought to maintain its safety objection.
Held: The highway . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.141964

Wright and Another v Horsham District Council: UTLC 22 Aug 2011

UTLC COMPENSATION – tree preservation order – cracks appearing in house – refusal of consent to fell three oak trees – claim for cost of underpinning works, distress and inconvenience – whether damage caused by tree roots – whether evidence produced after refusal of consent admissible in determining causation – whether underpinning the natural and probable consequence of refusal of consent – whether underpinning required in any event – whether compensation payable for distress and inconvenience – compensation awarded andpound;24,001.25 – Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s.203(1)(a).

Judges:

Rose FRICS

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 319 (LC), [2011] JPL 1618

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 203(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Damages

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445682

MWH Associates Ltd v Wrexham County Borough Council: UTLC 19 Jul 2011

UTLC COMPENSATION – modification order – review of mineral planning permission under Environment Act 1995 – basis of claim – whether depreciation of the value of land or loss of profits – Habitats Regulations 1994 – proposed use contrary to law – insufficient evidence to establish depreciation of value of land – whether loss directly attributable to modification order – claimant not intending to work the land – derogation licence to translocate great crested newts would not have been granted in absence of modification order – no compensation payable

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 269 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environment Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – MWH Associates Ltd v Wrexham County Borough Council CA 28-Nov-2012
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445671

Valciukiene And Others v Pakruojo: ECJ 22 Sep 2011

ECJ Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Plans which determine the use of small areas at local level – Article 3(3) – Documents relating to land planning at local level relating to only one subject of economic activity – Assessment under Directive 2001/42/EC precluded in national law – Member States’ discretion – Article 3(5) – Link with Directive 85/337/EEC – Article 11(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/42/EC

Judges:

J-C Bonichot P

Citations:

C-295/10, [2011] EUECJ C-295/10, [2012] Env LR 283, [2012] 2 CMLR 21

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2001/42/EC, Directive 85/337/EEC, Directive 2001/42/EC

Cited by:

Cited – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Planning, Environment

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444671

Millgate Development Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Wokingham Borough Council: CA 6 Jul 2011

The developer appealed against refusal of an order releasing it from undertakings given to the local authority under section 106.

Judges:

Pill, Rimer, Munby LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1062

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 106(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444598

T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and Others v First Secretary of State: CA 12 Nov 2004

The claimants challenged refusal to grant permissions for the extensions of mobile phone masts.
Held: The planning officer had taken account of public disquiet about the proposed masts, but had disregarded the official policy. In the absence of good reason for departing from a policy, a decision could not stand. There was sufficient reassurance that there would be no material harm to the living conditions of children at nearby schools.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Laws

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 1763, [2005] Env LR 18, [2005] 1 PLR 97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.219514