Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 87 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 Regina v Leicester City Council ex parte Powergen UK Limited; CA 2000 - [2000] 81 P&CR 5
 
Regina v Mendip District Council ex parte Fabre [2000] JPL 810
2000

Sullivan J
Planning
The planning committee had accepted the officer's recommendation: "… one is concerned with the members’ reasons not the planning officer’s, but where a planning officer makes a recommendation which is followed by the members, the reasonable inference is that the members did so for the reasons advanced by the officer, unless of course there is some indication to the contrary".
1 Citers


 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another, Ex Parte Runnymede Borough Council Gazette, 07 January 2000
7 Jan 2000
QBD

Planning
The respondent built a coach house on the site of a former building with some history of residential use, but within the green belt. The question of whether it replaced an existing dwelling was one of fact and degree for the inspector. He had used the word 'inequitable' in justifying his decision, but this did not defeat his decision.

 
South Oxfordshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another Gazette, 13 January 2000
13 Jan 2000
QBD

Planning
Extensive grounds of a house had permissions subject to a condition that they should not be used for landing etc of helicopters. For several years the owner flew helicopters from the property relying upon provisions allowing temporary use. His application for permanent permission was refused. The appeal failed because the inspector had properly assessed the factors and concluded the use would not be incidental to the residential use. New arguments might be raised on appeal, but not always and not in this case.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288
1 Citers


 
Riordan Communications Ltd v South Buckinghamshire District Council Times, 18 January 2000
18 Jan 2000
QBD

Planning
Where a permission required work to be commenced within a certain time period, and work was indeed commenced, it was not open for the planning authority to suggest that although the work had been begun, there was no intention to complete it, and that accordingly that the permission was revoked. It was held that there was no requirement for any subjective intention to complete the works at the time they were begun.


 
 Hughes v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another; CA 19-Jan-2000 - Gazette, 03 February 2000; Times, 18 February 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 506
 
Hyde Park Residence Limited v Secretary for Environment, Transport and Regions and Westminster City Council [2000] EWCA Civ 13
26 Jan 2000
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Ball v Secretary of Satte for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 27 January 2000
27 Jan 2000
QBD

Planning, Natural Justice, Administrative
The applicant had appealed against an enforcement notice saying that the four year rule applied. The inspector issued his decision after the expiry of a time limit, but after the applicant had requested a further short period in which to make representations. It was held to be unfair to have proceeded without allowing more than a week for representations. B had suffered substantial prejudice for the failure to allow him to make such representations, and the decision was set aside.


 
 Regina v Durham County Council Ex Parte Huddleston; QBD 28-Jan-2000 - Times, 28 January 2000
 
Regina v Tandbridge District Council and Another, Ex Parte Al-Fayed Times, 01 February 2000
1 Feb 2000
CA

Personal Injury, Administrative, Planning
A planning authority disallowed an objection to the erection of a mobile telephone transmitter. Although there had been an omission in the procedure followed by the council, it was clear that it had in fact considered the evidence put forward by the objector, and had made its decision in the light of that evidence. Objectively unjustified fears in a local community might be taken into account, but in this case they should not.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Porter v Snowdonia National Park Gazette, 13 February 2000
13 Feb 2000
QBD

Planning
The applicant had operated a caravan and camping site for seven years. He was allowed three caravans within the curtilage of his farmhouse, but argued for an additional fourth under the General Permitted Development Order. Held the fourth caravan was in excess, and therefore the three remaining caravans also failed to comply, and the respondent had properly been convicted of failing to comply with the enforcement notice.


 
 Newell and others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; Fletcher Estates (Harlescott) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; HL 17-Feb-2000 - Times, 23 February 2000; Gazette, 02 March 2000; [2000] UKHL 10; [2000] 2 AC 307; [2000] 1 All ER 929; [2000] 2 WLR 438
 
David Wilson Homes Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Another Gazette, 24 February 2000
24 Feb 2000
COL

Planning
Land was designated as being of high landscape value and included in the green belt under the new unitary development plan. The council had taken into account a similar designation under the previous plan when it was not to do so, and had created a false dichotomy in its analysis. It had also failed to give adequate reasons from departing from the recommendations of the inspector. The designation as green belt land was set aside.

 
R v Surrey County Council Ex Parte Bridge Court Holdings Ltd and Others Gazette, 24 February 2000
24 Feb 2000
QBD

Planning, Registered Land
Land was transferred to a company but the transfer not registered. The land had the benefit of a certificate of lawfulness of existing use for waste disposal. Doubts had arisen in the local authority about the correctness of the certificate, and they revoked it. They failed to serve the new owners or an occupier of part of the land. They failed also to investigate the circumstances as advised by their officers. The revocation was set aside as Wednesbury unreasonable.

 
Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another v Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd Times, 08 March 2000; Gazette, 09 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 60; [2001] QB 59; [2000] 2 PLR 84
25 Feb 2000
CA

Land, Planning
The meaning of 'curtilage' whilst not strictly a term of art had caused considerable difficulties. There was nothing inherent in the concept to imply any limitation that the area should be small. In this case the curtilage of a manor house could clearly include stable houses 200 meters from the main house. Accordingly those buildings were included within the property subject to the listed buildings order. The general legislative purpose of both regimes is the protection of the national heritage, and the particular purpose of the extending provisions is to ensure that not only the heritage property itself, but also its fixtures and its environment, are protected.
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 - Ancient Monuments and Archeological Areas Act 1979 61(7)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The Trustees of JH Higgins (Deceased) and J Hitchings Discretionary Trust Gazette, 02 March 2000
2 Mar 2000
QBD

Planning
An application had been made for permission for a Motorway Service Area. The initial application was granted on the grounds of the needs, as then defined, under department guidance ad policies. After the appeal, new guidance was given. The Secretary of State allowed the appeal under the new criteria. It was held that he had not improperly confused two criteria for need, and nor had he misled the applicants, nor failed to give them opportunity to make representations.

 
Regina v Caradon District Council Ex Parte Knott Times, 03 March 2000; [2000] 3 PLR 1
3 Mar 2000
QBD

Planning
A planning authority had already issued both rectification and discontinuance notices, and there was now no dispute with the land owner about the need to dismantle existing buildings, it amounted to an abuse of process further to go and issue an enforcement notice which would have the sole purpose of depriving the land owner of any right to claim compensation. Such a notice could only be issued for a genuine planning purpose. That was absent here.
1 Citers


 
Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary of State for et Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Times, 14 March 2000
14 Mar 2000
CA

Constitutional, Planning, Landlord and Tenant
An Act might include a power to amend another by secondary legislation, but any such power must be construed narrowly. The owners of property sought to change its use from long term residential use to a use for short term visitors. S25 of the main Act remained unaffected by subsequent secondary legislation.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 172 - Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 25


 
 Regina v Durham County Council and Others Ex Parte Huddleston; CA 15-Mar-2000 - Times, 15 March 2000; Gazette, 30 March 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1484
 
ADT Auctions Limited v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Hart District Council [2000] EWHC Admin 305
16 Mar 2000
Admn
Jowitt J
Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Braithwaite and Another v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Gazette, 30 March 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 306
17 Mar 2000
Admn

Planning
The claimants owned land designated as green belt. They sought its exclusion from the green belt and designation for employment purposes. At the enquiry, the inspector agreed, and recommended accordingly. The council took the land from the green belt, but allocated it within the UDP as open space. They refused to re-open the enquiry. Held: The decision was quashed. The designation as open space had not been considered at the enquiry, and the council had failed to consider properly the landowners representations.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 287
[ Bailii ]
 
Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 5569
22 Mar 2000
CA
Morritt, Pill, Schiemann LJJ
Planning
The court was asked whether the erection of a marquee in the grounds of an hotel amounted to a development requiring planning permission. The hotel was a listed building. The marquee was only taken down once a year. Held: The marquee required permission.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 55(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Fenland District Council v Rueben Rose (Properties) Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 92
28 Mar 2000
CA
Otton, Judge LJJ
Planning, Jurisdiction

[ Bailii ]
 
Powys County Council v National Assembly for Wales, and Johnathan Hanson [2000] EWHC Admin 313
30 Mar 2000
Admn
Turner J
Planning

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Uprichard and others v Fife Council and St Andrews Bay Developments Ltd for Judicial Review &C [2000] ScotCS 90; [2001] Env LR 122; 2000 SCLR 949
31 Mar 2000
SCS
Lord Bonomy
Scotland, Planning
Six petitioners sought to challenge the grant of planning permission by the responders allowing a commercial hotel development in St Andrews, which, they said, would adversely affect the landscape and otherwise.
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]

 
 Richmond London Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another; QBD 6-Apr-2000 - Gazette, 06 April 2000
 
Fenland District Council v Reuben Roae (Properties) Ltd Gazette, 06 April 2000
6 Apr 2000
CA

Planning, Litigation Practice
The owner of a listed building obtained consent for certain works, but the local authority failed to notify the Secretary of State. Later the works were to be started, and the authority claimed that the consent was void, and sought an injunction. It was held that the injunction was capable of being granted under the clear words of the Act, and it was the clear duty of the authority in the circumstances to seek an injunction. The fact that they were at fault did not absolve them of that duty.
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

 
Fernback; Berger; Jacobs; Strachan and Wong v London Borough of Harrow [2000] EWHC Admin 278
11 Apr 2000
Admn

Planning

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Vale of Glamorgan District Council ex parte David Adams [2000] EWHC Admin 323
12 Apr 2000
Admn

Planning

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Roger Raymond Jarmain v Secretary of State for Environment and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 126; [2000] 2 PLR 126
12 Apr 2000
CA
Brooke LJ
Planning
Brooke LJ contrasted a "purist" approach and a "pragmatic" approach to questions of planning enforcement and preferred the pragmatic approach: "Anyone who had any experience of the operation of the former law relating to the enforcement of planning control knows that it was disfigured by time-consuming litigation over technicalities, raised by determined litigants who sought to evade the effects of enforcement action taken against them by local planning authorities on behalf of their local communities. From time to time, there were judicial explosions on the topic." and
"I am quite satisfied that one of parliament's main purposes in 1991, in overhauling Part II of the 1990 Act, was to spare those like Mr Eyre the pain of returning to those arid technicalities."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Epping Forest District Council, ex parte Philcox (2); Admn 13-Apr-2000 - [2000] EWHC Admin 324; [2000] EWHC Admin 325

 
 Epping Forest District Council v Philcox; CA 13-Apr-2000 - [2002] Env LR 2
 
Forte Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 14 April 2000
14 Apr 2000
QBD

Planning
An inspector refused the applicant's appeal after refusal of permission for Travelodge, finding that the proposed development was not an employment use within the structure plan and the local plan, but it did impact on the supply of land for business industry and warehousing, and the need for this type of development did not outweigh other planning considerations. A further appeal was rejected. The inspector had properly concluded that the development would contravene the policies, and explained how such a development would be harmful.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

 
MacGay Limited v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Harrogate Borough Council v Heather I've Associates; JJ Harrison (Properties) Limited v Swayfields Limited [2000] EWHC Admin 330
14 Apr 2000
Admn

Planning, Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council [2000] EWHC Admin 336
19 Apr 2000
Admn

Road Traffic, Planning

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Enterprise Inns Plc v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions and Liverpool City Council [2000] EWHC Admin 333
19 Apr 2000
Admn
Maurice Kay J
Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v North West Leicestershire District Council and Another, Ex Parte Moses Gazette, 28 April 2000
28 Apr 2000
CA

Planning, Judicial Review
The authority granted approval of an extension of the airport runway in 1994, but on a later application required an environmental impact assessment. That was provided, and dealt with the impact of both extensions. The applicant sought judicial review of the first approval. He argued that the delay was overborne by the importance now attached to such procedures. Held: The application for review was refused. The considerable delay had allowed many millions of pounds to be spent, and further money would be spent taking down what had been built.
Supreme Court Act 1981 31(6)
1 Cites



 
 William Morrison Supermarkets plc v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Stockton on Tees Borough Council; QBD 11-May-2000 - Gazette, 11 May 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 331

 
 Bracken v East Hertfordshire District Council; QBD 11-May-2000 - Gazette, 11 May 2000

 
 Berkeley v Secretary of State For The Environment and Others; HL 11-May-2000 - Times, 07 July 2000; [2000] 3 WLR 420; [2001] 2 AC 603; [2000] UKHL 36; [2000] 3 All ER 897
 
The Scottish Coal Company Limited for Judicial Review of Two Breach of Condition Notices [2000] ScotCS 121
11 May 2000
SCS
Lord Prosser
Planning

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Rochford District Council [2000] EWHC Admin 337
12 May 2000
Admn
Turner J
Planning

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Restormel Borough Council ex parte Parkyn; Regina v Restormel Borough Council ex parte Corbett; Admn 19-May-2000 - [2000] EWHC Admin 344
 
Hawkins v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 25 May 2000
25 May 2000
QBD

Planning, Agriculture
The applicant sought permission to continue to use a dwelling in breach of an agricultural occupation restriction. There was no evidence that the property had no realistic prospect of sale subject to the condition, and the inspector found that the restriction had not outlived its usefulness. The inspector was entitled to make a judgment as to the prospects of sale and had not taken into account irrelevant matters.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions, ex parte Rochford District Council Times, 31 May 2000
31 May 2000
QBD

Planning, Administrative
A council had failed to fulfil its obligation to update and republish its local plan. The applicant had sought permission to develop a block of flats, but the council failed to determine the application. He appealed to the inspector who also awarded him a contribution to his costs on the basis that there was no proper reason for state of the council's plan, and because of an error in the application of a policy. On appeal it as held that though the faults pre-dated the application, that was clearly provided for in Circular 8/93

 
St Paul's Development Ltd v Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council and another Times, 31 May 2000
31 May 2000
QBD

Planning
The applicant sought residential use of one plot of land. The authority designated it for employment use, and took land out of the Green belt for housing. After a Unitary Development Plan enquiry, the applicant appealed again, and the inspector made certain findings and recommendations. The Authority went ahead with the UDP. Held: The Authority had erred in publishing the plan without taking on board the inspectors new findings, and should have considered holding a new enquiry.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 78, 287


 
 E v Camden London Borough Council, Ex Parte Williams; QBD 6-Jun-2000 - Times, 06 June 2000

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte O'Byrne; QBD 8-Jun-2000 - Gazette, 08 June 2000
 
Postermobile Plc v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council Gazette, 08 June 2000
8 Jun 2000
QBD

Planning, Construction
A builder was convicted after having a hoarding erected which announced forthcoming building works, but where such works were not in fact begun within the three month rule. The conviction was upheld, since the regulations were quite clear. The rule was a relaxation, and it was for those taking advantage of that relaxation to bring themselves within it.

 
Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Ex Parte Trustees of the Council for the Protection of Rural England Unreported, 12 June 2000
12 Jun 2000
CA

Planning

1 Citers


 
Hertsmere Borough Council v Reid Estates Ltd Gazette, 22 June 2000
22 Jun 2000
QBD

Planning
The authority gave permission for a road-side sign on condition that it was kept clean and tidy. They later issued a notice requiring its removal, complaining that it had become overgrown and partly obscured. The sign and site were tidied, but the authority prosecuted. They appealed the magistrates dismissal of the information. On appeal the question was as to the condition of the notice at the time it was served, not whether it had been remedied. The permission had accordingly lapsed.
Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 224

 
Regina v Bolsover District Council, Ex Parte Paterson Gazette, 06 July 2000
6 Jul 2000
QBD

Planning
A coach house itself had a separate listing in the register from the house in the grounds of which it lay. The house owner obtained permission for work on a garage close to the coach house, but no notice was given to the owner of the coach house. Held: The breach of the rules was made out. Each listed building which might be affected by the development was to be considered separately. The development might affect the coach house, and the owner should have had opportunity to present his arguments before the permission was granted.
Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (1995 No 419)

 
Regina and Northampton Borough Council ex parte Northampton Rapid Transit System [2000] EWHC Admin 367
10 Jul 2000
Admn

Planning, Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Tait and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Maidstone Borough Council [2000] EWHC Admin 657
12 Jul 2000
Admn
Maurice Kay J
Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
County Properties Limited v The Scottish Ministers Times, 19 September 2000; [2000] ScotCS 212; 2000 SLT 965
25 Jul 2000
OHCS
Lord Macfadyen
Human Rights, Planning, Scotland
The company applied for planning permission. The Secretary of State called in the application to be decided by a reporter. The applicant complained that this infringed its right to a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Such a person might deal with issues of fact, but here he would also be making the decision, and the objection was lodged by an agency for which the Secretary was responsible. The Secretary was judge in his own cause.
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex Parte Milne (2) Gazette, 31 August 2000; [2001] JPL 470; [2001] Env LR 406; (2001) 81 P&CR 365
31 Jul 2000
QBD
Sullivan J
Planning, Environment
Developers submitted applications for outline permission for the development of a business park. The applicant sought to quash the grant on the basis that the environmental assessment was insufficiently detailed, and contained reserved matters, and that the development conflicted with the applicable unitary development plan. Held: The intent of the legislation had been satisfied, and as much information as was available had been provided. Some residual flexibility was inevitable: "a legalistic approach to the interpretation of development plan policies is to be avoided". It was also common for such permissions to conflict in part with the UDP.
Where outline planning consent is being applied for, it is at the outline consent stage that the planning authority must have sufficient details of the proposed development, sufficient details of any impact on the environment, and sufficient details of any mitigation to enable it to comply with its article 4(2) obligation. An authority need not require further details of a matter where it is "satisfied that such details , provided they are sufficiently controlled by condition, are not likely to have significant effect." Mr Jones submits that such is the case here. There was a well established mitigating technique involving negative pressure which virtually eliminated any environmental problem. A planning authority is entitled to assume that the Environmental Agency will carry out its functions "with a reasonable degree of competence."
“the development which is described and assessed in the Environmental Statement must be the development which is proposed to be carried out and therefore the development which is a subject of the development consent and not some other development” and the "…..local planning authority will need to be satisfied that the description of the proposed development in the outline planning permission is adequate, given that it will be able to impose conditions in respect of reserved matters so that matters of detail can be dealt with at a later stage".
and "Any major development project will be subject to a number of detailed controls, not all of them included within the planning permission. Emissions to air, discharges into water, disposal of the waste produced by the project, will all be subject to controls under legislation dealing with environmental protection. In assessing the likely significant environmental effects of a project the authors of the environmental statement and the local planning authority are entitled to rely on the operation of those controls with a reasonable degree of competence on the part of the responsible authority: see, for example, the assumptions made in respect of construction impacts, above. The same approach should be adopted to the local planning authority's power to approve reserved matters. Mistakes may occur in any system of detailed controls, but one is identifying and mitigating the 'likely significant effects', not every conceivable effect, however minor or unlikely, of a major project."
"It is not at all unusual for development plan policies to pull in different directions. A proposed development may be in accord with development plan policies which, for example, encourage development for employment purposes, and yet be contrary to policies which seek to protect open countryside. In such cases there may be no clear cut answer to the question: 'is this proposal in accordance with the plan?' The local planning authority has to make a judgment bearing in mind such factors as the importance of the policies which are complied with or infringed, and the extent of compliance or breach."
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 54A 70
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Standard Commercial Property Securities Limited for Judicial Review of A Decision Dated 26 August 1999 of Glasgow City Council [2000] ScotCS 228
15 Aug 2000
OHCS
Lord Nimmo Smith
Scotland, Planning, Land

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 191
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Regina v Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council, Ex Parte Eminian Times, 17 August 2000
17 Aug 2000
QBD

Planning, Road Traffic
When a householder applied for leave to construct a vehicular crossing over a footway to the carriageway, the highway authority was entitled to consider the effect such a way would have on the controlled parking zone, and could go beyond the elements listed in the section. Here the grant of the right would have reduced the number of parking spaces available within the zone, and this was enough reason to refuse consent.
Highways Act 1980 184(1)


 
 Buckinghamshire County Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Brown; Admn 31-Aug-2000 - Times, 13 October 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 386; [2001] 1 PLR 38

 
 Beyers v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Uttlesford District Council; Admn 31-Aug-2000 - [2000] EWHC Admin 387
 
Regina v Derbyshire County Council Ex parte David Murray [2000] EWHC Admin 393
6 Oct 2000
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Rumsey v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions and Waverley Borough Council [2000] EWHC Admin 399
11 Oct 2000
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Retail Media and Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions and Macclesfield Borough Council [2000] EWHC Admin 398
11 Oct 2000
Admn

Planning, Media

[ Bailii ]
 
Alan Frank Sage v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions and Maidstone Borough Council Times, 23 October 2001; [2000] EWHC Admin 394
11 Oct 2000
Admn
Keene LJ
Planning
An enforcement notice was issued. The land-owner resisted, saying that the building had been substantially completed more than four years before. Held: It was necessary only that the building works permitted by the permission should be complete, and not that the building should be complete in other ways so as to have made it habitable.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171B(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Federal Mogul Corporation v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions [2000] EWHC Admin 395
11 Oct 2000
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Derbyshire County Council Ex Parte Murray Gazette, 19 October 2000; Times, 08 November 2000
19 Oct 2000
QBD

Planning, Environment
The applicant sought to challenge the grant of licences for extraction of clay and other minerals. He claimed that the authority had failed to give proper consideration to the guidance from the department, that they had failed to give proper weight to the objectives required, and that the environmental report was inadequate. It was held that the authority had indeed properly allowed for the report, that the authority having considered the objectives, it was not open to the court to look at what importance had been assigned to the different elements, and that the environmental assessment had been challenged too late in the proceedings.

 
Eastbourne Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions, and Batey and Another Gazette, 19 October 2000
19 Oct 2000
QBD

Planning
The landowners were granted permission to change the use of their guesthouse to private use. The change was challenged on the basis that the inspector had misapplied the policy regarding 'financial viability of a continuing tourist operation,' and that he had failed to make proper allowance for non-financial reasons requiring its continued use for tourist purposes. It was held that the phrase 'financial viability' could be read in the way the inspector had, but he had indeed dealt with the non-financial aspects in only one line of his report, which could not be sufficient. He did not indicate whether he had accepted that some guesthouses operated on low rates of return.

 
Belmont Riding Centre Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 26 October 2000
26 Oct 2000
QBD

Planning
The land owner applied for permission to upgrade an indoor riding centre. The Secretary of State upheld the inspector's decision. The claimant's appeal was dismissed. The inspector had become seriously ill during the inquiry, and had delayed its completion, but he had considered properly the change of emphasis between outdoor and indoor activity, the intensification of use, and the particular character of the claimant's proposals. The Inspector's failure to repeat every item of evidence did not suggest that he had forgotten any of it, and he had properly considered and rejected the applicant's arguments.


 
 Regina v North Somerset District Council, ex parte Cadbury Garden Centre Ltd; CA 27-Oct-2000 - Times, 22 November 2000
 
Telecom Securicor Cellular Radio Limited v National Assembly for Wales v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority [2000] EWHC Admin 412
2 Nov 2000
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v the City of Edinburgh Council and East of Scotland Water, Application for Judicial Review of a Decision By the Respondents To Grant Planning Permission [2000] ScotCS 272
3 Nov 2000
SCS

Scotland, Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v the City of Edinburgh Council and East of Scotland Water for Judicial Review of A Decision By the Respondents To Grant Planning Permission
3 Nov 2000
SCS
Lord Marnoch
Scotland, Planning

[ ScotC ]
 
O'Connor v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 09 November 2000
9 Nov 2000
QBD

Planning
The authority issued an enforcement notice alleging a breach of planning control through a change of use form agriculture to mixed agriculture and storage of non-agricultural materials. The land owner brought unchallenged evidence that use had continued for more than ten years, and the notice was incorrectly issued. The inspector found the witnesses' evidence unreliable. The appeal succeeded. If the inspector wished to reject unchallenged evidence he must give very clear reasons for doing so.

 
Regina v South Holland District Council appellant ex parte Lincoln Co-Operative Society Ltd [2000] EWHC Admin 419
14 Nov 2000
Admn
Smith J
Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Bridle v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions Gazette, 16 November 2000
16 Nov 2000
QBD

Planning
The landowner had applied for and had been refused change of use from an agricultural building to residential land. He subsequently applied for similar permission in respect of a goat shed. The council failed to determine his application, and the inspector refused it. He alleged a failure to take proper account of the relevant development plan, and that ongoing unauthorised residential use of the property had gone beyond the point at which enforcement could be effected. It was held that the development plan remained in draft only, and enforcement proceedings had begun within the time required and remained extant.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171B
1 Cites


 
Kingsley v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 23 November 2000
23 Nov 2000
QBD

Planning
The applicant owned land in the green belt. The local authority set out a structure plan proposing 5,000 homes in the green belt. The applicant sought amendments to increase the number saying there was insufficient urban land. An examination-in-public panel proposed the original number and the local authority confirmed it. The applicant sought a review on the basis that the council did not deal with the fundamentals of the report, and the explanatory memorandum had strayed into making policy. The authority had got to the fundamentals right, but had, indeed, become too detailed in its memorandum and therefore been making policy. Such policy elements were struck out, but the remainder stood.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 287 32 - Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1991

 
Hambleton District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 30 November 2000
30 Nov 2000
QBD

Planning
The appellant challenged the decision of a planning inspector considering an enforcement notice with regard to the siting of a residential caravan on land that other suitable accommodation was not available in the area. The only evidence was a site visit. That visit could not support such a finding. A second decision to vary an enforcement notice went beyond the inspectors powers which were limited to considering whether the steps required by the notice were necessary to alleviate the planning breach. He could not consider injury to amenity.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174(2)


 
 Brent London Borough Council v Patel and Another; ChD 30-Nov-2000 - Gazette, 15 December 2000; Times, 30 November 2000

 
 Fisher v Wychavon District Council; CA 30-Nov-2000 - Times, 22 November 2000; Gazette, 30 November 2000; Gazette, 23 November 2000
 
Wainsfort Corporation v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 07 December 2000
7 Dec 2000
QBD

Planning
The applicant sought permission to erect a boathouse in green belt land. The application was rejected and on appeal, the inspector again rejected the application after considering structure and local plan policies and the PPG2. On appeal, the court held that he was free to consider but distinguish a similar successful application relating to land nearby. It was within his discretion to distinguish the application. The inspector was entitled to find that an "essential" requirement was one requiring a high standard. He was also entitled to reject the contention that the site was rural and that policy GB2 applied. He must still consider the openness of the green belt, which was a very general principle over and above such matters.


 
 Epping Forest District Council v Philcox; CA 8-Dec-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 515
 
Thurrock Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Enviroment, Transport and The Regions ex parte Terry Holding Times, 20 December 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 323
13 Dec 2000
CA

Planning, Litigation Practice
Where the claimant was not out of time to bring an appeal, or he retained the right of appeal, or the works proposed involved were not new, and no amendment or substitute of a new claim was proposed, the court should exercise its discretion to amend the claim form so that an application for permission to appeal under section 289, should proceed as an application under section 288.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288 289 - Civil Procedure Rules Part 1.1(1) 1.2 17.4
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Holding and Barnes Plc) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Regina (Premier Leisure UK Limited) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Regina (Alconbury) etc Times, 24 January 2001; [2000] EWHC Admin 432; [2000] EWHC 563 (QB)
13 Dec 2000
Admn
Tuckey LJ, Harrison J
Human Rights, Transport, Land, Planning
The court was asked whether the processes by which the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions (SSETR) makes decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) and orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA), the Highways Act 1980 (HA) and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (ALA) are compatible with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Held: A declaration of incompatibility was granted with regard to the processes by which the Secretary of State made decisions under the Planning Act and orders under the Transport and Works Act, Highways Act and Acquisition of Land Act. They were incompatible with article 6.1 of the Convention on the basis that the processes failed to provide an independent tribunal. In some cases, the decisions being challenged were those in effect of the Secretary, and the decision was made by somebody appointed by the subject to removal by the secretary of state. The restrictions on the scope of the High Court to review the decisions and the freedom of the Secretary of State to make his own decision after a public hearing, meant that applicants were deprived of the an independent tribunal.
Human Rights Act 1998 - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 - Acquisition of Land Act 1981 - European Convention on Human Rights 6(1) - Highways Act 1980 - Transport and Works Act 1992
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council [2000] EWCA Civ 324
14 Dec 2000
CA

Planning, Road Traffic

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Foxlow Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 15 December 2000
15 Dec 2000
QBD

Planning
The owner of a listed building removed a chimney stack and replaced it. Compliance with current building regulations would not have been able to serve the five fires served by the old stack. An enforcement notice was issued and confirmed by the inspector requiring the restoration of the initial stack. The council's decision to under-enforce the restoration was acceptable. They owners' appeal to the court was dismissed. The enforcement notice had been clear in what it required, and it had been correctly seen as an exercise in restoration. He was aware of the decision by the authority. He had taken into account everything that he should have, and nothing that he shouldn't.

 
Wiggins v Secretary of State for The Environment, Transport and The Regions [2000] EWHC Admin 436
21 Dec 2000
Admn
The Hon. Mr Justice Collins
Planning
The claimant sought to appeal an enforcement notice. The land had been used for crushing etc concrete. The council had said it was an unlicensed waste management facility. A temporary permission had been granted subject to an obligation under s106. Held: Permission was obtained for a filetring media plant, but under the subsequent Use Classes Order, both the filtering media and concrete crushing uses fell within Class B2 and so no planning permission was now required for the change from one to the other. The order was not retrospective, but the claimant asserted established use. The rule in Newbury only applied to preserve an existing use where the new planning permission was unnnecessary to the cuttent use. That did not apply here and the appeal was dismissed.
Town an Country Planning Act 1990 106
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Mohammed Aslam v South Bedfordshire District Council Times, 18 January 2001; Gazette, 11 January 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 355
21 Dec 2000
CA

Land, Planning
The claimant appealed an award of the Lands Tribunal of compensation for an order discontinuing his use as a slaughterhouse of premises of which he held a long lease. The tribunal had applied a discount for wastage on sheep carcasses of 25%, but had had no evidence to support their conclusion, and the figure proposed had allowed for that factor. A reduced allowance for losses from sale of other parts of sheep could not be supported by the evidence, and was increased, and the tribunal should have awarded interest from the date of the discontinuance order.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 102 - Planning and Compensation Act 1991
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.