The authority had commenced planning enforcement proceedings. At the hearing, agreement was reached between the defendant and the authority’s representative, and the proceedings were compromised. The authority itself later sought to set aside the compromise claiming that its officer had acted outside his power.
Held: The officer had power to compromise the proceedings in which he acted, but did not have power to withdraw the enforcement notice itself. No legitimate expectation had been created, and the doctrine of estoppel, which is a matter of private law, has no place in public planning law.
Judges:
Lord Justice Keene and Mr Justice Sumner
Citations:
Gazette 20-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 690, [2002] 1 WLR 2601
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bloggs 61, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-Jun-2003
The applicant sought review of a decision to remove him from a witness protection scheme within the prison. He claimed that having been promised protection, he had a legitimate expectation of protection, having been told he would receive protection . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Local Government, Estoppel
Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.172228
