Gosbee and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v First Secretary of State and Another: Admn 20 Mar 2003

A bungalow was not demolished as required by a condition when planning permission for a new dwelling was given. An enforcement notice was issued requiring the demolition of the bungalow.
Held: ‘in determining whether the interference is proportionate both parties accept, and I agree in this case, that the Court should adopt the two-fold test adumbrated by Dyson LJ in [Samaroo]’. The Inspector had not in terms disentangled the two questions referred to in Samaroo but stated that the key issue was whether the proper balancing of factors had taken place: ‘I do not think there can be any real doubt that the inspector considered both that the condition was the least intrusive interference to achieve the policy of one for one replacement, as he put it, and that the environmental interest which he assessed to be very important outweighed the Article 8 interest in the circumstances of this case. This was essentially a balancing exercise for him in the light of the information he had.’
Elias J
[2003] EWHC 770 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedNewbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1980
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be . .
CitedRegina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Andrew Tew; George Daniel Milne; and Steven Garner Admn 7-May-1999
An outline application for a shopping development, gave no details of the expected floor area, and nor was there an environmental assessment.
Held: The failure to give the floor area was not critical, but even at this stage the ommission of . .

Cited by:
CitedLough and others v First Secretary of State Bankside Developments Ltd CA 12-Jul-2004
The appellants challenged the grant of planning permission for neighbouring land. They sought to protect their own amenities and the Tate Modern Gallery.
Held: The only basis of the challenge was under article 8. Cases established of a breach . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 March 2021; Ref: scu.185579