The appellant developers had obtained detailed planning approval for fourteen houses, but after adjustments for a building line, moving several properties distances of several feet toward other properties, further plans were submitted without identifying the changes. The changes were discussed, and an approval noted by the developer’s architect. The development proceeded. A neighbour objected, and the officer recommended an application for approval of the amendment. The planning committee refused approval.
Held: The developer succeeded.
Lord Denning MR said that the case ‘should be decided on the practice proved in evidence. It was within the ostensible authority of Mr. Carpenter to tell Mr. Rottenberg that the variation was not material. Seeing that the developers acted on it by building the house, I do not think the Council can throw over what has been done by their officer, Mr Carpenter.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR, Sachs, Megaw LJJ
Citations:
[1970] EWCA Civ 3, [1971] 1 QB 222, (1970) 21 P and CR 778, 68 LGR 757, [1970] 3 WLR 732, [1970] 3 All ER 496
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Southend-on-Sea Corporation v Hodgson (Wickford) Ltd QBD 1961
The Corporation had, by its engineer, said that its permission for the use of land as a builder’s yard was not in fact and law required. It was mistaken in this view.
Held: What the engineer had said could not create an estoppel preventing the . .
Cited – Royal British Bank v Turquand CEC 1856
The plaintiff sought payment from the defendants, a joint stock Company, on a bond, signed by two directors, under the seal of the Company whereby the Company acknowledged themselves to be bound to the plaintiff in pounds 2,000. The company said . .
Cited – Wells v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1967
It had been the practice of planning authorities, acting through their officers, to tell applicants whether or not planning permission was necessary. A letter was written by the Council Engineer telling the applicants that no permission was . .
Cited by:
Cited – Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Local Government
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.262773