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: 1994 To: 1994
This page lists 23 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Regina v Cornwall County Council ex parte Huntington and Another; CA 1994 - [1994] 1 All ER 694
Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Environment and Another; QBD 7-Jan-1994 - Times, 07 January 1994
Croyden London Borough Council v Gladden and Others; CA 23-Feb-1994 - Times, 23 February 1994; Ind Summary, 28 February 1994; Gazette, 27 April 1994; [1994] 1 PLR 30
Runnymede La v Harwood; CA 23-Feb-1994 - Times, 23 February 1994
ISKCON v United Kingdom 20490/92; (1994) 18 EHRR CD 133
8 Mar 1994
ECHR
Human Rights, Planning, Administrative
(Commission) A local authority had served an enforcement notice on ISKCON alleging a material change of use of the land. ISKCON appealed against the notice under section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and after a report by an inspector the Secretary of State largely confirmed the enforcement notice. The High Court and the Court of Appeal rejected ISKCON'S appeal. On a complaint under the Convention the Commission recalled that an appeal under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 lay only on a point of law but it took into account that the local authority could only take proceedings within the limits of section 174 of that Act and that in accordance with its own structure plans and the policy guidance laid down by the Secretary of State ISKCON could then seek a determination as to whether the legal requirements had been met. Held: The Commission concluded: "The Commission recalls that the High Court dealt with each of ISKCON'S grounds of appeal on its merits, point by point, without ever having to decline jurisdiction. Moreover, it was open to ISKCON to contend in the High Court that findings of fact by the inspector and/or the Secretary of State were unsupported by evidence, as they could have argued that the administrative authorities failed to take into account an actual fact or did take into account an immaterial fact. Finally, the High Court could have interfered with the administrative authorities' decisions if those decisions had been irrational having regard to the facts established by the authorities.
It is not the role of article 6 of the Convention to give access to a level of jurisdiction which can substitute its opinion for that of the administrative authorities on questions of expediency and where the courts do not refuse to examine any of the points raised; article 6 gives a right to a court that has 'full jurisdiction' (cf [Zumtobel v Austria (1993) 17 EHRR 116, para 32])."
European Convention on Human Rights 6 - Town and Country Planning Act 1990
1 Citers
Carter and Another v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Carrick District Council; CA 6-Apr-1994 - Times, 06 April 1994; Ind Summary, 04 April 1994; [1994] 1 WLR 1212
Runnymede Borough Council v Harwood Gazette, 13 April 1994
13 Apr 1994
CA
Planning
Interlocutory injunctions were properly granted to keep status quo in a planning matter.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B
Ex P Harrow London Borough Council Times, 05 May 1994
5 May 1994
QBD
Planning
Unsupported access suggestion by inspector should not be given much weight.
Holmes and Another v Bradford Metropolitan Council Times, 19 May 1994
19 May 1994
QBD
Land, Planning
The owner of land is not liable under an enforcement notice charge under section 179 (4), but under section 179 (1).
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 179(1) 179 (4)
Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No. 736 of 1994; Unreported, 25 May 1994
25 May 1994
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham and Beldam L.J
Planning
Three companies competed for permission to build a retail food superstore in Witney. The inspector recommended Tesco's proposal, but the SSE set aside the inspector's decision in favour of the local authority's preference. Tesco sought a declaration quashing the decision letter. It said that insufficent allowance had been given to its offer of funding for infrastructure. Held. The Secretary of State had not failed to have regard to Tesco's offer of funding nor treated it as immaterial, but had simply declined to give it any or any significant weight, as he was entitled to do.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR said that the case involved: "a question of unusual public importance bearing on the conditions which can be imposed, and the obligations which can be accepted, on the grant of planning permission and the point at which the imposition of conditions, and the acceptance of obligations, overlaps into the buying and selling of planning permission, which are always agreed to be unacceptable."
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 106
1 Citers
Regina v Sheffield City Council Ex Parte Power and Others Times, 07 July 1994
7 Jul 1994
QBD
Planning
Established use certificates broadening existing use to be challenged by review.
JL Engineering and Another v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; CA 25-Jul-1994 - Ind Summary, 25 July 1994
Regina v Thurrock Borough Council, ex Parte Blue Circle Industries Plc; CA 11-Oct-1994 - Times, 31 October 1994; Independent, 11 October 1994
Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; CA 24-Oct-1994 - Ind Summary, 24 October 1994; [1994] 64 P&CR 120
Regina v South Northamptonshire District Council and Another Ex Parte Crest Homes Plc and Another; CA 26-Oct-1994 - Times, 08 November 1994; Independent, 26 October 1994
St George Developments Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Environment and Another Ind Summary, 31 October 1994; [1994] 3 PLR 33
31 Oct 1994
QBD
Nigel McLeod QC
Planning
The company already had outline permission for a residential development at Kew Gardens. Two schemes were submitted. On one, the council failed to reach a timely determination, and it refused the other. The developers appealed to the Secretary of State. Held: The appeal failed. Section 54A applied also to an appeal against refusal of matters reserved, and in considering an appeal, the Secretary had himself to apply both section 54A and the development plan as a material consideration. His decision was a determination under the Planning Acts.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 54A
Practice Direction Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Independent, 02 November 1994
2 Nov 1994
CA
Planning
Detailed procedures were set out on applying for leave for judicial review in planning cases.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 289
Bruce v Secretary for State for the Environment Times, 17 November 1994
17 Nov 1994
CA
Planning
A stop notice did not make building redundant so as to allow its re-use inside the green belt.
McAlpine v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another Times, 06 December 1994; [1995] 1 PLR 16
6 Dec 1994
QBD
Planning, Land
The extent of a curtilage was to be determined as at the time when a dispute arose, but historical evidence remained relevant.
1 Citers
Handoll and Suddick v Warner Goodman and Streat (a firm) and Others (1995) 70 P&CR 627; [1994] EWCA Civ 42; [1995] 1 EGLR 173; [1994] NPC 158; [1995] 25 EG 157
9 Dec 1994
CA
McGowan, Peter Gibson LJJ, Sir John May
Planning
The purchasers of land on which a bungalow had been erected wanted to discover, by way of a preliminary issue in an action against the vendor, whether a condition attached to planning permission would enforceable against them. A planning permission had been granted subject to a condition of agricultural occupancy. However, the bungalow had been erected a short distance outside the area for which planning permission had been granted, and was thus in breach of planning control. Held: Where a development does not comply in a material respect, or to a material extent, with the permission granted, a condition attached to that permission cannot apply to the unauthorised development.
The Council had argued that its inability to enforce the planning control because of the passage of time could not affect the occupancy and the condition attached to it, looking for support to the decision in Kerrier. Overruling Kerrier, the court decided that A planning authority cannot succeed in an action for breach of condition unless the development to which it was attached by the planning permission has actually been carried out. The reasoning of the Court of Appeal was that if a development has been carried out other than in accordance with the planning permission granted, it is unauthorised and unlawful, and therefore the conditions attached to the permission can have no effect upon it. It would be open to the planning authority to serve an enforcement notice to prevent any use of the unauthorised development (not just a use which breached the condition). However once the time for enforcement had passed, the planning authority would be unable to enforce either the original permission or any conditions attached to it.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Wheeler and Another v JJ Saunders Ltd and Others; CA 19-Dec-1994 - Times, 03 January 1995; [1996] Ch 19; [1994] EWCA Civ 8; [1994] EWCA Civ 32; [1995] 3 WLR 466; [1995] 2 All ER 697
Shimizu (UK) Ltd v Westminster City Council Ind Summary, 13 February 1995
20 Dec 1994
CA
Millett LJ and Sir Ralph Gibson, Russell LJ dissenting
Planning
The phrases 'demolition' and 'alteration' are mutually exclusive concepts when used for the purposes of the Planning Acts. Held: When section 27(1)(a) referred to "an application for . . consent for the alteration . . of a listed building", the words in their context did not include an application for consent for works which consisted of or included demolition of part of a building. The concepts of "demolition" and "alteration" were mutually exclusive, to the extent of precluding the demolition of a part of the building from amounting to an alteration of the whole. Millett LJ said: This was with reluctance and regret, but he was persuaded that the opposite view could not be maintained in view of the provisions of section 8 of the Act, as they dealt separately with the authorisation of works of alteration or extension on the one hand and works of demolition on the other.
Russell LJ (dissenting) said that the question whether a particular activity was "demolition" or "alteration" of a building was essentially a question of fact to be determined in the light of all the relevant circumstances, that the court should not interfere in the finding of the Lands Tribunal if the member was entitled on the material before him to reach he conclusion that he did and that, as he was entitled to reach that conclusion, his decision should not be disturbed.
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 8
1 Citers
Regina v Teignbridge District Council Ex Parte Teignmouth Quay Company Ltd Times, 31 December 1994
31 Dec 1994
QBD
Planning
Wrong to serve contravention notice unless breach might have occurred.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171C