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: 1993 To: 1993
This page lists 28 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Van Dyck v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] JPL 565; [1993] 1 PLR 124
1993
CA
Simon Brown, Dillon and Farquharson LJJ
Planning
The court asked whether the four year enforcement rule applied in respect of subdivision of a larger building to create single dwelling houses or applied only in the case of conversion of a single building to single dwelling houses. Held: It applies to subdivision. The concept of the planning unit has no part to play in a case where there has been a change from use as a single dwellinghouse to use as two or more separate dwellinghouses within section 55(3)(a).
Simon Brown LJ said: "Having considered those competing submissions at some length he [the Lord Justice] had reached the conclusion that the concept of the planning unit in fact afforded no assistance to either side . . As stated, the purpose of the concept-the only point in deciding upon the appropriate planning unit-was to decide whether or not there had been a material change of use. Here undoubtedly there had been-section 55(3)(a) so declared. There was accordingly no possible need to invoke the doctrine of the planning unit to decide the question. Here, moreover, it was the very act of creating two separate units of occupation out of a single pre-existing unit which constituted the making of the material change of use. How inappropriate, therefore, that one should seek assistance from a doctrine substantially founded on units of occupation to illuminate the nature of the breach of planning control in question or to determine the appropriate target for enforcement. In short, none of the planning unit cases had any application whatever to the situation presently confronting this court."
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 55(3)(a)
1 Citers
Northavon District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Trustees of the Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses [1993] JPL 761
1993
QBD
Auld J
Planning
The trustees sought permission to erect a religious meeting place on Green Belt Land, which was refused. They said the council had failed to treat it as an 'institution standing in extensive grounds' within PPG2 (1988). The inspector said there had to be a functional relationship between the proposed building and the extensive grounds, which the respondent Secretary of State rejected in allowing the appeal. Held: The Council's appeal failed. There was no definition in law of what was meant by the phrase, and in most case this simply fell as a matter of fact and degree decided by planning judgement. The words spoke for themselves, but their application to particular factual situations would often be a matter of judgment for the planning authority. That exercise of judgement would only be susceptible to review in the event that it was unreasonable. The respondent might well choose to refine the guidance to give clarity. Until any change there was no necessary connection between the land and the function of the proposed building.
1 Citers
Regina v Swansea City Council, ex parte Elitestone Ltd; QBD 1993 - Ind Summary, 31 May 1993; Times, 13 May 1993; [1993] 90 LGR 604; (1993) 66 P&CR 422
South Somerset District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 1 PLR 80
1993
CA
Hoffmann LJ
Planning
Following Seddon properties, when considering the degree of detail to be given by an inspector in his decision notice: "The inspector is not writing an examination paper . . One must look at what the inspector thought the important planning issues were and decide whether it appears from the way he dealt with them that he must have misunderstood a relevant policy . ."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment; CA 1993 - (1993) 66 P & CR 263
Horsham District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 1 PLR 81
1993
CA
Nolan LJ
Planning
1 Citers
Mendip District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Castle Housing Society Limited; 1993 - (1993) COD 274
Regina v Plymouth City Council, ex parte Plymouth and South Devon Co-operative Society (1993) 67 P & CR 78
1993
CA
Hoffmann LJ
Planning
A supermarket operator was seeking to overturn planning consents granted to two rivals, and argued that the section 106 agreements were not material considerations unless they passed the necessity test. Held: It was sufficient, on the basis of Newbury [1981] A.C. 578, that the obligations offered concerned planning matters and fairly and reasonably related to the proposed development.
Hoffmann LJ discussed paragraph B7 of the SS guidance that planning obligations should only be sought where they were necessary to the granting of permission, he observed that this statement of policy embodied a general principle that planning control should restrict the rights of landowners only so far as might be necessary to prevent harm to community interests: "The fact that the principle of necessity is applied as policy by the Secretary of State does not make it an independent ground for judicial review of a planning decision . . to say that a condition or the requirement of a section 106 agreement would have been discharged on appeal by the Secretary of State, because its imposition did not accord with the policies I have quoted, is not at all the same thing as saying that the planning authority would have been acting beyond its statutory powers."
1 Citers
London Borough of Sutton v Bolton and Another [1993] 68 P & CR 166; [1993] 91 LGR 566; [1993] 2 EGLR 181; [1993] 33 EG 91
3 Feb 1993
ChD
Paul Baker QC J
Planning, Land
Land had been owned by the authority and used as a children's home. After a boundary change taking the land outside its area, it sought to sell the land for development. The neighbours, claiming the benefit of a restrictive covenant allowing only one house on the land, objected. Using the 1972 Act, the authority purported to override the covenant by appropriating the property to planning purposes. They now sought validation of that appropriation. Held: The appopriation was unsuccessful. The section allowed no greater power than the power to acquire land for any particular purpose, and it could not have been acquired for that purpose, since the land was no longer within its district. The authority had to show the appropriation was for a purpose set out in the section, which did not include the satisfaction of the planning purposes of a different authority.
Local Government Act 1972 122 - Town and Country Planning Act 1971 127 - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 237 246
Canterbury City Council v Colley and Another; HL 24-Feb-1993 - Gazette, 24 February 1993
Gillingham Borough Council v Cock Ind Summary, 01 March 1993
1 Mar 1993
QBD
Planning, Crime
Where the defendant was accused of affixing posters to lampposts contrary to the Act, the defence under the section was available to him only if he could show that he had no knowledge or had not consented to the posters being displayed in this manner. The knowledge and consent were disjunctive, and he might still have a defence if he knew of the act but did not consent to it.
Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1989 5 - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 224(5)
J L Engineering and Another v Secretary of State for the Environment Times, 02 March 1993
2 Mar 1993
CA
Planning
Reversion to industrial use from agricultural required consent.
Surrey County Council v Bredero Homes Ltd [1993] 1 WLR 1361; [1993] 3 All ER 705; [1993] EWCA Civ 7; [1993] EWCA Civ 21; [1993] EGCS 77; [1993] 25 EG 141
7 Apr 1993
CA
Dillon, Steyn, Rose LJJ
Land, Damages, Planning
A local authority had sold surplus land to a developer and obtained a covenant that the developer would develop the land in accordance with an existing planning permission. The sole purpose of the local authority in imposing the covenant was to enable it to share in the planning gain if, as happened, planning permission was subsequently granted for the erection of a larger number of houses. The purpose was that the developer would have to apply and pay for a relaxation of the covenant if it wanted to build more houses. In breach of covenant the developer completed the development in accordance with the later planning permission, and the local authority brought a claim for damages. Held: The erection of the larger number of houses in breach of the covenant had not caused any financial loss to the local authority. The Court refused to countenance the possibility of awarding restitutionary damages for breach of contract, giving reasons why such an award should be exceptional. Wrotham Park type damages were defensible only on the basis that they were restitutionary in nature. The judge had awarded nominal damages of pounds 2, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the local authority's appeal.
Steyn LJ distinguished between a claimant's "positive or expectation interest" and his "negative" interest which enables a claim to be made for "reliance" losses.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Regina v Swansea City Council, ex parte Elitestone Ltd [1993] 46 EG 181
5 May 1993
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Staughton LJ, Mann LJ
Local Government, Planning
The company appellant, E, wished to develop its land. The Council had declared it to be a conservation area. E said that they had not given the necessary notice of the meeting of the sub-committee at which the initial decision had been made. E appealed against a finding that due notice had been given. Held: E's appeal failed. The reference to 'three clear days' in the statute referred to working days only. Of the days to be counted, the 1st May had been a public holiday. The notice was not therefore as required, and the meeting was procedurally defective and ineffective in law. However the later decision of the full committee was the effective decision, and achieved that which the sub-committee had failed to achieve.
The chalets sought to be replaced were structures or erections, and therefore buildings within planning law.
Local Government Act 1972 100B
1 Cites
Guilford Borough Council v Smith; QBD 18-May-1993 - Times, 18 May 1993
Kingston Upon Thames Royal Borough Council v National Solus Sites Ltd Times, 24 June 1993
24 Jun 1993
QBD
Local Government, Planning
Display of different posters without consent constitutes separate offences.
Edmonds v Merton London Borough Council; Tyndall v Same Times, 06 July 1993; Ind Summary, 12 July 1993
6 Jul 1993
QBD
Planning
The term 'knowledge or consent' is to be construed disjunctively. The absence of consent is a defence.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 224-5
Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment Times, 19 July 1993; Independent, 16 July 1993
16 Jul 1993
CA
Planning
An action for a occupancy in breach of a planning consent remained enforceable after the 4 year limitation period.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 172(4)
Bride Brick Company Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment and Another Times, 19 July 1993
19 Jul 1993
CA
Planning
Replacing old buildings with new ones in a National Park would set a bad precedent.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288
Kissel v Secretary of State for Environment and Another Times, 22 July 1993
22 Jul 1993
QBD
Planning
Planning Inspector should take notice of relevant local draft plan.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 702-2
Staley v Secretary of State for the Environment Ind Summary, 26 July 1993
26 Jul 1993
CA
Planning
An appeal is not the proper method for challenging costs awarded by an inquiry.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288
Cameron v Secretary of State for Scotland Times, 05 August 1993
5 Aug 1993
IHCS
Planning, Scotland
(Scotland) A decision was not ultra vires when a planning circular was used as a reference.
Regina v Collett, Regina v Furminger, Regina v Nazari, Regina v Pope, Regina v Bandar; CACD 28-Oct-1993 - Times, 28 October 1993; Gazette, 08 December 1993
British Railways Board v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; HL 29-Oct-1993 - Times, 29 October 1993; [1994] JPL 32
Regina v Thurrock Borough Council and Others, ex parte Tesco Stores Ltd; QBD 5-Nov-1993 - Independent, 28 October 1993; Times, 05 November 1993
Good and Another v Epping Forest District Council Times, 11 November 1993; Gazette, 26 January 1994; [1994] 1 WLR 376
11 Nov 1993
CA
Ralph Gibson LJ
Planning
A council may agree to a restriction on use outside the scope of the planning acts. An agreement under section 52 might be valid notwithstanding that it did not satisfy the second of the Newbury tests.
Ralph Gibson LJ said: "For my part I accept the submission of Mr Gray that, upon the true construction of s. 52 of the Town and County Planning Act 1971, the powers of a planning authority under that section are not controlled by the nature or extent of its powers under s. 29 of the Act of 1971; and I reject the submission advanced for the plaintiffs that those powers are so controlled. The extent of the s. 52 powers is to be determined by reference to the words there used having regard to the context. In particular they give power to a planning authority to enter into an agreement with the owner of the land "for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of land." If such an agreement is required by a planning authority, and the requirement is made for such a purpose, with due regard to relevant considerations, and is not unreasonable (see the first and third requirements stated in Newbury District Council -v- Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578 at 618), such requirement is not ultra vires merely because the purpose could not be validly achieved by the imposition of a condition under s. 29 of the Act of 1971. The two statutory powers are distinct and the exercise of either of these distinct powers has separate consequences and is subject to different procedures.
If such an agreement is required, and the land owner agrees to enter into it, the validity of the agreement depends upon the same primary test, namely whether it was made "for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land"."
Town and Country Planning Act 1971 52
1 Citers
Regina v Collett and Others Ind Summary, 22 November 1993
22 Nov 1993
CA
Planning
Offence is one of strict liability so no need to show actual knowledge of notice.
Town and Country Planning Act 1971 89(5)
Christchurch Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment; CA 16-Dec-1993 - Times, 05 January 1994; [1993] NPC 167; [1994] 68 P&CR 116
