The appellant owned land. Another company owned the mineral rights in the land. There had been no working of the mineral rights since 1982, and the respondent council had registered the planning permission as dormant, meaning that if the land was to be worked again steps would first have to be taken to meet current environmental standards. The land owner disputed the extent of the land identified as subject to the permission. The plan attached to the original permission had been lost. Only part of the land covered by the permission was thought to have been worked previously.
Held: The landowner’s appeal failed. Stage 1 of the procedure is administrative. The Council was only listing the sites. It was not necessary at the stage for the authority to make a planning judgment about the extent of the land covered by the permission. There was nothing in the paperwork produced by the Council to suggest an intention to cut down the extent of the land covered by the permission.
Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson, Lord Reed
[2012] UKSC 31, UKSC 2011/0039, [2012] PTSR 1495, [2012] WLR(D) 200
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lafarge Aggregates Ltd and others v Scottish Ministers and others SCS 9-Jan-2004
The court set out the evolution of planning law on the control of long standing permissions for mineral extraction. . .
Opinion – G Hamilton (Tullochgribban Mains) Ltd, Re Judicial Review SCS 13-Jan-2009
The land was subject to an old mineral planning permission. A plan attached to that permission was now lost, and the permission itself was now classed as dormant. The land-owner feared that in resurrecting the permissions, the authority had . .
Appeal from – G Hamilton (Tullochgribban Mains) Ltd v The Highland Council and Another SCS 7-Jan-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Planning
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.462502
