The Council had granted planning pemission for four blocks of student accomodation. The Executive objected that it had not dealt properly with the issue the proximity of a liquified petroleum gas storage depot.
Held: Though there had been some confusion as to the need to revoke all or part only of the consent, the council’s failure consider this option made the decision not to make a revocation order unlawful, and they should be ordered to reconsider.
Whether compensation might be payable on such a revocation would be a material issue in that reconsideration (Pill LJ dissenting).
Sullivan LJ thought that the introduction of the word ‘expedient’ was not ‘of itself’ sufficient to justify a different approach as between section 70 and section 97, and ‘there must be a consistent approach to the meaning of ‘material considerations’ in the enactments which comprise the ‘planning code”, and: ‘The 1990 Act must be read as a whole for the purpose of ascertaining Parliament’s intention. Since Parliament expressly provided that the local planning authorities will be liable to pay compensation if they decide that action should be taken under certain powers conferred by the Act, it must be inferred, in the absence of clear words to the contrary, that Parliament expected that a local planning authority would have regard to its liability to pay compensation under one part of the Act when deciding whether or not to exercise a power under another part of the Act. A decision under section 97 is not taken in isolation, it is taken within the statutory framework of the 1990 Act. If that statutory framework imposes a liability to pay compensation if a certain course of action is taken, there is no sensible reason why that liability should be ignored (in the absence of an express instruction to do so) when a decision is reached under the Act as to whether that action should be taken.’
Longmore LJ considered ‘brightline rules’ to be ‘much more troublesome’ in public law than in private law: ‘The view that the fact and the amount of compensation can never be taken into account by a planning authority has, to my mind, an inappropriately absolute ring to it. A private pocket may be required to pay up although the heavens fall around it, but such a principle can be awkward where the public purse is involved and public authorities have budgets within the limits of which they must, if possible, keep.’
Pill LJ dissented, saying: ‘I agree with Richards J in the Alnwick case that what is capable of amounting to a material consideration for the purposes of section 97 must be the same as in relation to the determination of planning applications under section 70. Its use in a context in which compensation may follow from a decision does not affect what is comprehended by the term ‘material considerations’, which are planning considerations related to the character, use or development of the land.’
Judges:
Pill, Longmore, Sullivan LJJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 892, [2010] NPC 91, [2011] PTSR 645
Links:
Bailii
Statutes:
Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/743), Town and Country Planning Act 1990, European Council Directive 96/82/EC
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Leave to appeal to Supreme Court – Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton County Council CA 30-Jul-2010
Adjournment of costs hearing. Grant of permission to appeal to Supreme Court. . .
Appeal from – Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council and Another Admn 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought to have development stopped on a site which it said was too near a site for the storage of liquid petroleum gas.
Held: Collins J allowed the claim and granted declaratory relief that Wolverhampton had failed to: (i) notify . .
Cited – Vasiliou v Secretary of State for Transport CA 1991
When considering the revocation or modification of a planning consent, any impact on an interested party is a relevant consideration. A planning permission should not have been granted closing a public road without considering its adverse effect on . .
Mentioned – Northumberland County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment 1989
. .
Cited – Alnwick District Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and others Admn 4-Aug-1999
The Council had given planning consent for a superstore, not appreciating the proposed size, which would contravene national planning policy. In the face of the council’s objections, the Secretary of State revoked the permission. The substantial . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council SC 18-Jul-2012
The Council had granted planning permission for four student housing units. The Executive complained that they were too near to a liquified gas storage depot. The Court was now asked whether the impact of any compensation which might be payable on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421205
