The claimant sought to have development stopped on a site which it said was too near a site for the storage of liquid petroleum gas.
Held: Collins J allowed the claim and granted declaratory relief that Wolverhampton had failed to: (i) notify the HSE that it was minded to grant permission; (ii) notify the HSE that it had granted permission; (iii) give an adequate summary of its reasons for granting permission; and (iv) provide a summary of relevant policies when granting permission.
 EWHC 2688 (Admin),  45 EG 105,  PTSR (CS) 1,  NPC 125
Applied – Alnwick District Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and others Admn 4-Aug-1999
The Council had given planning consent for a superstore, not appreciating the proposed size, which would contravene national planning policy. In the face of the council’s objections, the Secretary of State revoked the permission. The substantial . .
Cited – Vasiliou v Secretary of State for Transport CA 1991
When considering the revocation or modification of a planning consent, any impact on an interested party is a relevant consideration. A planning permission should not have been granted closing a public road without considering its adverse effect on . .
Appeal from – The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council and Victoria Hall Ltd CA 30-Jul-2010
The Council had granted planning pemission for four blocks of student accomodation. The Executive objected that it had not dealt properly with the issue the proximity of a liquified petroleum gas storage depot.
Held: Though there had been some . .
At first instance – The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council SC 18-Jul-2012
The Council had granted planning permission for four student housing units. The Executive complained that they were too near to a liquified gas storage depot. The Court was now asked whether the impact of any compensation which might be payable on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.377566