The claimant garden centre sought to challenge a relaxation on planning restrictions over a competing centre.
Held: The section 106 agreemnent was to be looked at to see what purpose was served by the original conditions. Section 106A(6) does not require that the obligation continues to serve its original purpose. What matters is whether the obligation continues to serve a useful purpose. The members had not properly considered what purpose had been served, or looked at the suggested terms as a whole. The application was not premature since the faults were probably incapable of correction otherwise.
The Honourable Mr Justice Richards
[2003] EWHC 1605 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 106 106A
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham And Others, ex parte Burkett and Another HL 23-May-2002
The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission for a development which would affect her. The authority objected that the application was made after three months after their decision, and so leave should not be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Judicial Review
Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.184271