Planning permission had been granted for an office block, together with 8 flats as part of the same building. The building was largely erected, with the residential part incomplete. There was an application to change the existing permitted use of the residential part of the block to office use. That application was refused. The resulting appeal was dismissed by the Secretary of State. At first instance Willis J. quashed the decision, following Granada on the basis that the desirability of retaining the existing housing use was an immaterial consideration.
Held: This approach was wrong, Sir David Cairns: ‘The fact that the refusal of planning permission for a change of use cannot ensure that a current use which is a permitted use will continue was as already indicated the ground of the refusal of planning permission in the case of the Dartford cinema. It is equally true that whereas in the present case the permitted use has not been started, the refusal of an application to change of use cannot ensure that permitted use will ever be started. This was a point strongly relied on. I do not find it a compelling argument. The need for housing is certainly a planning consideration. If permission is given for office use, the permission will almost certainly be implemented and the building will be unavailable for housing. If permission for office use is refused, there is at least a fair chance that the building will be used for housing rather than being allowed to stand empty’.
Judges:
Sir David Cairns
Citations:
[1977] 1 WLR 926
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Westminster City Council) v British Waterways Board HL 1985
The tenant occupied land next to a canal under a lease from the Defendants. The landlord opposed a renewal saying they wished to occupy the land themselves for the purposes of a marina. The tenant said the plan was unrealistic, because it would not . .
Cited – London Residuary Body v Lambeth London Borough Council HL 1990
Planning battles had raged over the use of the former GLC County Hall. The question was whether it was desirable and appropriate to retain use of part of the building for London Government offices and centred on the ‘competing needs’ test.
Cited – London Residuary Body v Lambeth London Borough Council HL 1990
Planning battles had raged over the use of the former GLC County Hall. The question was whether it was desirable and appropriate to retain use of part of the building for London Government offices and centred on the ‘competing needs’ test.
Cited – Christchurch Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 16-Dec-1993
The council appealed against the inspector’s decision to grant permission to a construction company to build houses on land. The land had formerly been used as a school playing field and was now surplus to requirements. The Council wished to put the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Planning
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.219456
