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: 1991 To: 1991
This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Horsham District Council v The Secretary of State for the Environment (1991) 63 P & CR 219; [1992] 1 PLR 81
1991
CA
Nolan LJ
Planning
The council had refused planning permission for a petrol station and restaurant nearby an area of outstanding natural beauty, designated as a strategic gap in the county structure plan. The inspector had allowed the appeal, finding that the development would not detract from the purposes of policy ENV 6, which required the maintenance of such gaps. The Council said he had not given reasons for this finding. Held: The Council's appeal succeeded. An inspector should have regard to the development plan and other material considerations, giving reasons which demonstrated his understanding of the plan. The policy required compelling reasons for any development within the strategic gap. The inspector had ignored that requirement.
1 Citers
Oakimber Ltd v Elmbridge Borough Council (1991) 62 P&CR 594
1991
CA
Purchas, Taylor, Beldam LJJ
Planning
Beldam LJ said: 'On this reasoning it is unnecessary to consider the interesting argument addressed to the court that development carried out in breach of conditions can be regarded as development to which the permission related and whether for the purposes of planning permission conditions can properly be regarded as 'conditions precedent'. But if it had been necessary to do so, I would have expressed my agreement in principle with the view of Woolf J (as he then was) in Etheridge v Secretary of State for the Environment that development carried out without permission or commenced in contravention of conditions of a permission would not be development to which the permission related because it was development carried out in breach of planning control and so not permitted. However the importance and nature of the condition and the extent of and reasons for breach may in some circumstances be relevant considerations and I would prefer to reserve an opinion on the question for a case in which it is necessary to decide it.'
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Swale Borough Council, ex parte Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; 1991 - [1991] 1 PLR 6
Pedgrift v Oxfordshire County Council (1991) 63 P & CR 246
1991
CA
Staughton LJ
Planning, Local Government
It is unattractive for the Council to rely on its own unlawful act in imposing a planning condition in excess of its powers.
Vasiliou v Secretary of State for Transport [1991] 2 All ER 77
1991
CA
Nicholls LJ
Land, Damages, Planning
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 the business of traders relying on it. In the absence of a stopping-up or diversion order, the grant of planning permission does not of itself affect or override any existing rights of property or over a highway On a stopping up order the Secretary of State cannot go behind the planning authority's decision on the planning issues. It remains, however, a matter for the judgment of the Secretary of State.
1 Citers
Regina v Shropshire County Council, ex parte Bungay [1991] 23 HLR
1991
Admn
Otton J
Housing, Planning
The court upheld a planning decision that a gypsy family had retained their nomadic way of life notwithstanding that they had not travelled for many years. Fifteen years after the gypsy family had stopped travelling because of the father's age and ill-health, the court held that they were still of a nomadic habit of life because they had not abandoned their nomadic lifestyle but held it in abeyance to care for the father.
1 Citers
Carpets of Worth Limited v Wire Forest District Council [1991] 2 PLR 84
1991
Planning
1 Citers
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Kent and Others [1991] 3 PLR 17
1991
Pill J
Planning
Pill J disussed the rationale behind the efficacy of the provision in the Town and Country Planning Act: "There is an obvious public interest in certainty and finality when planning permissions which attach to the land concerned are granted."
and "In my judgment, sections 242 and 245 of the 1971 Act do define the time limit for challenging allegedly unfair decisions under section 36 of the Act by way of judicial review."
Town and Country Planning Act 1971 36 242 245
1 Citers
Fredin v Sweden [1991] 13 EHRR 784; 12033/86; [1991] ECHR 2
18 Feb 1991
ECHR
Human Rights, Environment, Planning
A gravel pit licence was revoked without compensation pursuant to legislation brought in after the owner had acquired the pit but before it had begun to exploit it. The actual revocation took place after the pit had been exploited for a number of years, but the owner had known that its future was uncertain because of the possibility of revocation. It contended that it should have had more time in which to close down and that it had made investments which should have been allowed to be more fully exploited. Held: The time given was reasonable. Disputes under planning rules could affect civil rights to build on the applicant's land. Signatory states enjoy a wide 'margin of appreciation' in this area relating to the control of the use of land in the public interest for environmental reasons, and that the controls prescribed or interferences involved must be without any reasonable foundation if the court is to regard them as disproportionate.
European Convention on Human Rights P-1 A-1
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Save Britain's Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd; HL 28-Feb-1991 - [1991] 1 WLR 153; Times, 01 March 1991; [1991] 2 All ER 10; [1991] 62 P and CR 105
Pine Valley Developments Ltd And Others v Ireland Times, 11 December 1991; 12742/87; 43/1990/234/300; [1991] 14 EHRR 319
29 Nov 1991
ECHR
Human Rights, Planning
ECHR Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Violation of Art. 14+P1-1; No violation of Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved
The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in circumstances where the domestic courts declared the planning permission a nullity on the ground that it had been granted ultra vires. A legitimate expectation relating to property may constitute a possession protected by Article 1 at any rate if it can be regarded as a component of property protected by Article 1. a legitimate expectation may arise notwithstanding the fact that it was beyond the powers of the public body which fostered the expectation to realise the expectation. The legitimate expectation cannot entitle a party to realisation by the public body of the expectation which it is beyond the powers of the public body to realise, but may entitle him to other relief which it is within the powers of the public body to afford, e.g. the benevolent exercise of a discretion available to alleviate the injustice or payment of compensation. The fact that the expectation was founded on an ultra vires act or that the public body had no power to realise the expectation raised and the reason why in law it had no such power (e.g. the potential adverse effect on third parties) may be a reason, and indeed a strong reason, going to the justification for the interference and its proportionality.
European Convention on Human Rights 1
1 Citers
