swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Planning - From: 1930 To: 1959
This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Trim v Sturminster Rural District Council [1938] 2 KB 508
1938
CA
Planning
The 'appurtenances' of a house are confined to the curtilage of the house.
1 Citers
Fletcher v Minister of Town and Country Planning [1947] 2 All ER 496
1947
Planning, Administrative
A local authority being consulted about the government's proposed designation of Stevenage as a "new town" would be likely to be able to respond satisfactorily to a presentation of less specificity than would members of the public, particularly perhaps the economically disadvantaged.
1 Citers
B Johnson and Co (Builders) Ltd v Minister of Health; CA 1947 - [1947] 2 All ER 395
Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning; HL 2-Jul-1947 - [1947] UKHL 3; [1948] AC 87; (1947) 176 LT 312; [1947] 2 All ER 289
Crisp from the Fens Ltd v Rutland County Council (1950) 1 P and CR 48
1950
CA
Bucknill LJ, Denning LJ
Planning
A permission was granted for the change of use of a building to use for making potato crisps subject to a condition confining its use to that of "the manufacture of potato crisps or any use within class III of [the Use Classes Order]", in order "to ensure that the building shall not be used for general industrial purposes" which would be detrimental to the amenity of the locality. The relevant Use Classes Order distinguished between use as a light industrial building (class III) and as a general industrial building (class IV); the former being defined by reference to whether the processes could be carried on in any residential area without detriment to its amenity by reason of noise, smell, fumes or smoke. Held: despite the unqualified reference in the condition to use for manufacture of potato crisps, the word "other" should be read into the second part of the condition ("or any other use . ."), with the effect that class III constraints should be read as applying to both parts of the condition.
Bucknill LJ said that the court should "have regard to the common sense of the transaction, and to the real intention and meaning of the parties rather than criticise minutely the precise words used"
Denning LJ added: "It is a case where strict adherence to the letter would involve an error of substance"
Town and Country Planning Act 1947
1 Citers
London County Council v Marks and Spencer Ltd; HL 1952 - [1953] AC 535; [1952] Ch 549
Attorney-General v Bastow; 1957 - [1957] 1 QB 514
Francis v Yiewsley and West Drayton Urban District Council [1958] 1 QB 478
1958
Planning
The claimant was said to have failed to comply with an enforcement notice. Held: A person prosecuted for failure to discontinue a use in accordance with an enforcement notice could challenge the validity of the notice before the criminal court on any ground whatever, including those upon which he could have appealed to the magistrates when it was served upon him
1 Citers
Pyx Granite Co Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1958] 1 QB 554
1958
CA
Lord Denning MR
Planning
Pyx Granite had the right to quarry in two areas of the Malvern Hills. The company required permission to break fresh surface on one of the sites. Held: Conditions attached to the planning permission relating to such matters as the times when machinery for crushing the stone could be used and the control of dust emissions were valid.
A planning condition is invalid, being contrary to law unless it is reasonably related to the development in the planning permission which has been granted. It must not be used for an ulterior purpose, and must be fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development.
Lord Denning MR said: "The principles to be applied are not, I think, in doubt. Although the planning authorities are given very wide powers to impose "such conditions as they think fit", nevertheless the law says that those conditions, to be valid, must fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development. The planning authority are not at liberty to use their powers for an ulterior object, however desirable that object may seem to them to be in the public interest."
1 Citers
Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council [1959] 2 AII ER 321
1959
CA
Lord Evershed MR
Planning, Agriculture
The landowner made an attempt to strike down as ultra vires a condition attached to a planning permission. The condition related to an agricultural use condition where the occupant was not substantially dependent upon income from what was described as a hobby farm. Held: The condition was valid because the appellant had not shown that it was unreasonable, that it was unrelated to or inconsistent with the policy underlying the relevant planning proposals, or that irrelevant considerations had been taken into account.
Lord Evershed MR said: "I take first the more broad and general attack by counsel for the company on the validity of the condition, viz., that in spite of the generality of the language of s. 14 (1) of the Act, "such conditions as they think fit", it is not open to the local planning authority to impose a condition in reference to a proposed structure related not to the manner in which the building may be used (e.g., as a residence, or as a shop, etc.) but to the class of persons who may use or occupy it. On this point I am content to adopt the conclusion and reasoning of ROXBURGH, J., who stated that acceptance of such an argument would involve reading some gloss or qualification into the language chosen by Parliament and that he could find no sufficient justification for doing so."
. . And "To my mind the most difficult question is whether, when regard is had, on the one hand, to the planning scheme and proposals of the council, and the reasons given by the council for the imposition of the condition in December, 1952, and, on the other hand, to the scope and effect of the condition itself according to a fair interpretation of the language, the latter ought to be treated as having been beyond the council's powers, not being fairly and reasonably related to the former. In formulating the question, I have, as a matter of language, substituted (by reference) the words "the planning scheme and proposals of the council" for the words used by ROXBURGH, J., "the local planning requirements". Both forms of words depart somewhat from the language of LORD DENNING in Pyx Granite Co., Ltd. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (1) ([1958] 1 All E.R. 625), where he spoke (ibid., at p. 633) of the requirement that the conditions should "fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development"."
1 Citers
Pyx Granite Ltd v Ministry of Housing and Local Government [1960] AC 260; [1959] 3 All ER 1
1959
HL
Viscount Simonds, Lord Goddard
Planning, Administrative, Constitutional
There is a strong presumption that Parliament will not legislate to prevent individuals affected by legal measures promulgated by executive public bodies having a fair opportunity to challenge these measures and to vindicate their rights in court proceedings doing so. Viscount Simonds said: "It is a principle not by any means to be whittled down that the subject's recourse to Her Majesty's courts for the determination of his rights in not to be excluded except by clear words. That is a 'fundamental rule' from which I would not for my part sanction any departure."
1 Cites
1 Citers