The House endorsed the practice of imposing negative conditions in planning consents, upholding the validity of a condition that the development of the site could not commence until the road on the western boundary of the site had been closed by a road closure order which the Secretary of State would have to confirm which overcame an objection to a proposed industrial development on the ground of road traffic safety.
Lord Bridge of Harwich said: ‘it is difficult to envisage a situation in practice in which the Tribunal, when assessing compensation, could be persuaded to act on a contrary opinion to that certified by the planning authority or the Secretary of State on appeal.’ and ‘It will be convenient to refer to the certificates contemplated by subsection (4)(a) and (b) as positive and negative certificates respectively. A decision by a planning authority, or by the Secretary of State on appeal, whether a positive or a negative certificate is appropriate, must proceed on the hypothesis predicated by subsection (3) and determine what planning permission, if any, would have been granted if the land were not proposed to be acquired by any authority possessing compulsory purchase powers. The sole purpose of the certification procedure is to provide a basis for determining the development value, if any, to be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable on compulsory acquisition. If a positive certificate is issued, it is to be assumed that the certified permission would be granted, subject to such conditions and at such future time, if any, as may be specified in the certificate: . . If a negative certificate is issued, ‘regard is to be had’ to the negative opinion certified: Although this is not conclusive, it is difficult to envisage a situation in practice in which the Lands Tribunal, when assessing compensation, could be persuaded to act on a contrary opinion to that certified by the planning authority or the Secretary of State on appeal.’
Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of Harwich
[1984] SC (HL) 58, (1983) 47 PandCR 43, [1983] 1 WLR 1340, [1983] 3 All ER 673
Scotland
Citing:
Approved – Newbury 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 . .
Appeal from – Grampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland SCS 1983
The Regional Council appealed against the Secretary of State’s decision to issue positive certificates. Lord Dunpark said: ‘Counsel for all parties agreed that the grantor of the certificate must disregard the proposal to acquire. The issue between . .
Cited by:
Cited – South Lanarkshire Council v The Lord Advocate As Representing the Scottish Ministers and others IHCS 30-Aug-2001
Following a planning permission the applicant’s land became subject to compulsory purchase, and they were entitled to a certificate of appropriate alternative development. An application was made, but much later, and then granted on appeal. The . .
Cited – Stewart v Perth and Kinross Council HL 1-Apr-2004
The claimant challenged refusal of a licence to sell second hand cars, saying that the licensing requirements imposed were outwith the Act under which they had been made. The licensing scheme imposed additional requirements.
Held: Though a . .
Cited – Jones v Secretary of State for Wales and Ogwr District Council CA 1990
The court adopted as a principle that a Grampian condition could only be imposed if there was a reasonable prospect of compliance within the time limit imposed on the permission. . .
Cited – Douglas John Merritt v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Mendip District Council Admn 5-Aug-1999
The applicant appealed refusal of planning permission for residential development of a small plot of land. The said that the inspector had wrongly rejected the application of a Grampian condition on the basis that it would not be fulfilled and also . .
Cited – British Railways Board v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another HL 29-Oct-1993
Permission had been given for residential development of land provided that access was provided. The access specified was to be over land owned by the council. It was known that the Council would not allow such access. The land owner sought an order . .
Distinguished – Newell and others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; Fletcher Estates (Harlescott) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
Where a certificate of appropriate development was issued for land to be acquired compulsorily, the land was to be valued at the date of the proposal to acquire it compulsorily allowing a discount for any damage to the value incurred by the long . .
Cited – Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority v Elsick Development Company Limited SC 25-Oct-2017
The court was asked whether, anticipating substantial growth, a local authority had power to attach to permissions for development conditions intended to recover sums for pooled fund for infrastructure development.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.180515