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 confirmation that the conditions had been met, they were unlawful and could not act to preserve the permission from lapse.
Held: Where there existed a planning permission subject to conditions which required the approval of the planning authority, and where such approval has been sought but the reply was delayed by that authority, such works would not be unlawful.
Woolf LJ said: ‘As I understand the effect of the authorities to which I am about to refer, it is only necessary to ask the single question: are the operations (in other situations the question would refer to the development) permitted by the planning permission read together with its conditions? The permission is controlled by and subject to the conditions. If the operations contravene the conditions they cannot be properly described as commencing the development authorised by the permission. If they do not comply with the permission they constitute a breach of planning control and for planning purposes will be unauthorised and thus unlawful. This is the principle which has now been clearly established by the authorities. It is a principle which I would have thought made good sense since I cannot conceive that when section 41(1) of the 1971 Act made the planning permission deemed subject to a condition requiring the development to be begun by a specified date, it could have been referring to development other than that which is authorised by the permission. The position is the same so far as regulation 7 [of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations 1971] and condition 11 are concerned. The mining operations to which the planning permission relates are those authorised by the planning permission, not those which are unauthorised, because they contravene conditions contained in the planning permission.’
Woolf LJ
(1992) 64 PandCR 296, Times 02-Apr-1992, [1992] 3 PLR 72
Town and Country Planning Act 1971 41(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.442412
