The applicant appealed refusal of planning permission for residential development of a small plot of land. The said that the inspector had wrongly rejected the application of a Grampian condition on the basis that it would not be fulfilled and also in having considred the access arrangements unacceptable when these had been reserved.
Held: The respondent had wrongly issued a policy firmly against Grampian conditions. The decision was to be quashed.
Judges:
Purchas QC
Citations:
[1999] EWHC Admin 783
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – British Railways Board v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another HL 29-Oct-1993
Permission had been given for residential development of land provided that access was provided. The access specified was to be over land owned by the council. It was known that the Council would not allow such access. The land owner sought an order . .
Cited – Millington v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 1999
The court commented on provisions in a circular as to the correctness of imposing planning conditions where it was thought that they might not be fulfilled: ‘I think that that footnote is mistaken. Certainly the case leaves it open to the Secretary . .
Cited – Grampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland HL 1983
The House endorsed the practice of imposing negative conditions in planning consents, upholding the validity of a condition that the development of the site could not commence until the road on the western boundary of the site had been closed by a . .
Cited – Jones v Secretary of State for Wales and Ogwr District Council CA 1990
The court adopted as a principle that a Grampian condition could only be imposed if there was a reasonable prospect of compliance within the time limit imposed on the permission. . .
Cited – Jones v Secretary of State for Wales and Ogwr District Council CA 1990
The court adopted as a principle that a Grampian condition could only be imposed if there was a reasonable prospect of compliance within the time limit imposed on the permission. . .
Cited – Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government 1970
While it is not for the courts to interfere with the formulation or administration of the Minister’s planning policies, the Minister is not able to dictate the exercise of discretion on the basis of a policy mandate. . .
Cited – Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council CA 25-Jun-1999
The fact that a new product was made on agricultural land from produce grown elsewhere on the land did not make that production process non-agricultural. The making of wine is capable of being agricultural use, and being thus free from planning . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 11-May-1995
Three companies had applied for permission to build retail food superstores in Witney. The Inspector had recommended Tesco’s proposal, but the respondent rejected it. Tesco’s had offered to provide by way of a section 106 agreement full funding for . .
Cited – Kent County Council v Kingsway Investments (Kent) Limited HL 1971
The objectives of the policy discouraging conditional planning consents included the avoidance of the accumulation of unimplemented permissions, an objective which itself underlay the time limit provisions, originally introduced under the 1968 Act. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.140047
