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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 98 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
McInerney v Portland Port Limited [2001] 1 PLR 104
2001
QBD
Latham LJ
Planning
In order to identify whether land comprises of garden, it is necessary not only to look at its appearance and its characteristics, but also to its use.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Cornwall County Council ex p Hardy [2001] 2001 Env LR 473
2001
Admn
Harrison J
Planning, Environment
The council granted planning permission although its planning committee had decided that further surveys should be carried out to ensure that bats would not be adversely affected by the proposed development. The question was the adequacy of information provided pursuant to Schedule 3 (where an EIA had been required), rather than the initial decision whether an EIA was required at all. The planning committee had decided that further surveys should be carried out to ensure that bats would not be adversely affected by the development. Held: Since those surveys might reveal significant adverse effects on bats, it was not open to the committee to conclude that there were no significant nature conservation issues until they had the results of the surveys. The surveys might have revealed significant adverse effects on the bats or their resting places. Without the results of the surveys, they were not in a position to know whether they had the full environmental information required by Regulation 3 before granting planning permission. It was not permissible to defer to the reserved matters stage consideration of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures.
1 Citers


 
Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions Gazette, 11 January 2001; [2001] JPL 686
11 Jan 2001
QBD

Planning
The Secretary called in a decision of the inspector to permit the building of a supermarket, and reversed the decision, holding that a need had been demonstrated, but that the inspector had been insufficiently flexible in applying the sequential test under PPG6, and he felt that the proposal was inconsistent with PPG13. On appeal, it was stated that the Secretary's decision had been sufficiently detailed to demonstrate his reasoning, and he was entitled to conclude that the inspector should apply a broader test. He had accepted the need for the development, but with clear doubts. His attitude to the parking and travel issues might have been given in more detail, but the deficiency was not enough to vitiate the decision.
1 Citers


 
Chapman v United Kingdom; similar Times, 30 January 2001; 27238/95; (2001) 33 EHRR 18; [2001] ECHR 43; (2001) 33 EHRR 479; (2001) 33 EHRR 399
18 Jan 2001
ECHR

Planning, Discrimination, Human Rights
The question arose as to the refusal of planning permission and the service of an enforcement notice against Mrs Chapman who wished to place her caravan on a plot of land in the Green Belt. The refusal of planning permission and the enforcement notice were upheld by the inspector. Held: The needs of gypsies for accommodation, and the refusal of permission to locate caravans on land purchased by them for this purpose, was not a sufficient infringement of their right to family life to outweigh the needs of society as reflected in the planning laws. The caravans were occupied as an integral part of their ethnic identity, but the planning laws required a large margin of appreciation to be afforded. to a national government. The interference was proportionate. "It is important to recall that Article 8 does not in terms give a right to be provided with a home. Nor does any of the jurisprudence acknowledge such a right. While it is clearly desirable that every human being has a place where he or she can live in dignity and which he or she can call home, there are unfortunately in the Contracting States many persons who have no home. Whether the State provides funds to enable everyone to have a home is a matter for political not judicial decision."
"When considering whether a requirement that the individual leave his or her home is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, it is highly relevant whether or not the home was established unlawfully. If the home was lawfully established this factor would self evidently be something which would weigh against the legitimacy of requiring the individual to move. Conversely, if the establishment of a home in a particular place was unlawful, the position of the individual objecting to an order to move is less strong. The court will be slow to grant protection to those who, in conscious defiance of the prohibitions of the law, establish a home on an environmentally protected site. For the court to do otherwise would be to encourage illegal action to the detriment of the protection of the environmental rights of other people in the community."
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Linden Prescott Dyason v Secretary of State for The Environment Transport and The Regions, Chiltern District Council [2001] EWHC Admin 583
18 Jan 2001
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bhamjee v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transpost and the Regions and Another; Admn 23-Jan-2001 - [2001] EWCA 13 (Admin)
 
JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v South Gloucestershire District Council [2001] EWCA Civ 96
25 Jan 2001
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Baker v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 585
26 Jan 2001
Admn

Planning

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Varey v United Kingdom; ECHR 30-Jan-2001 - Times, 30 January 2001; 26662/95; [2000] ECHR 692
 
Taylor v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Times, 30 January 2001; Gazette, 22 February 2001
30 Jan 2001
QBD

Agriculture, Planning
An area with a hard surface which was used as a hard standing for feeding sheep, and which was formed by deposit of builder's rubble was not a habitation and therefore was not used for the accommodation of sheep. Since the landowner was entitled to create such a surface, and entitled to use such waste in that construction, the order to remove it would create unnecessary work and expense.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 289 - Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (1995 No 419)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Newsmith Stainless Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC 74 (Admin)
1 Feb 2001
Admn
Sullivan J
Planning
Application was made to quash an inspector's decision. Held: An inspector's decision was not to be challenged as to its facts. In any case where the expert tribunal is the fact finding body the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness or irrationality is a difficult obstacle for an Applicant to surmount. The difficulty is greatly increased in most planning cases because the inspector is not simply deciding questions of fact but is reaching a series of planning judgments. The courts should be astute to ensure that perversity challenges are not be used "as a cloak for what is, in truth, a rerun of arguments on the planning merits".
Sulivan J explained that: "An application under section 288 is not an opportunity for a review of the planning merits of an Inspector's decision. An allegation that an Inspector's conclusion on the planning merits is Wednesbury perverse is, in principle, within the scope of a challenge under section 288, but the court must be astute to ensure that such challenges are not used as a cloak for what is, in truth, a rerun of the arguments on the planning merits.
In any case, where an expert tribunal is the fact finding body the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness is a difficult obstacle for an applicant to surmount. That difficulty is greatly increased in most planning cases because the Inspector is not simply deciding questions of fact, he or she is reaching a series of planning judgments. For example: is a building in keeping with its surroundings? Could its impact on the landscape be sufficiently ameliorated by landscaping? Is the site sufficiently accessible by public transport? et cetera. Since a significant element of judgment is involved there will usually be scope for a fairly broad range of possible views, none of which can be categorised as unreasonable.
Moreover, the Inspector's conclusions will invariably be based not merely upon the evidence heard at an inquiry or an informal hearing, or contained in written representations but, and this will often be of crucial importance, upon the impressions received on the site inspection. Against this background an applicant alleging an Inspector has reached a Wednesbury unreasonable conclusion on matters of planning judgment, faces a particularly daunting task . ."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Basildon District Council v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] JPL 1184
2 Feb 2001
Admn
Ouseley J
Planning
The court considered the relevance of personal circumstances to the grant of injunctions in enforcement of planning conditions. Held: In any considerations of common humanity, the needs of these particular gypsy families were a material consideration because they had a need for this development in this location. Those personal circumstances entitled the Secretary of State to have regard to them as relevant to the decision he had to make in the public interest about the use of the land for the stationing of residential caravans. Their particular need for stability in the interest of the education of the younger children can also reasonably be seen as an aspect of the wider land use interest in the provision of gypsy sites, which interest includes the need for stable educational opportunities. There is also a public interest in the planning system providing stable educational opportunities for gypsy families, including these gypsy families.
1 Citers



 
 Prashar v Secretary of State For Environment, Transport and Regions; CA 2-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1231; [2001] 3 PLR 116
 
Pickavant v Charnwood Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 261
2 Feb 2001
CA
chiemann, atham
Planning
Ability of a local planning authority to recover the costs of carrying out some work which Mr Pickavant had been ordered to do by an enforcement notice.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Wyre Borough Council ex parte Dransfield Properties Limited; Admn 7-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 147
 
Copas and Another v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead [2001] EWCA Civ 180
7 Feb 2001
CA
The Master Of The Rolls Lord Justice Simon Brown And Lord Justice Longmore
Planning
Land had first been excluded from the green belt, but then the plan had been revised. The revision was challenged, saying that a revision required exceptional circumstances making a revision necessary. Held: there are not two tests, exceptional circumstances and necessity, but one composite test. The revision was set aside.
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 66
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Barker, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Bromley and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 158
8 Feb 2001
CA

Planning

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Roshdy, Regina (on the Application Of) v City of Westminister Council; CA 14-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 246
 
Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 15 February 2001
15 Feb 2001
QBD

Planning
The applicant sought permission to demolish two buildings and erect offices. One part of one building had permission for A2 office use, and on appeal, the inspector found that change of use had been implemented. The claimant asserted that this was only a fallback permission, and the inspector had to allow for the applicant's ability to complete that change of use. It was held that the inspector could allow for the permission being a fallback use, but the change had been implemented by a bona fide lease. He had not suggested at the inquiry that the fallback use might not be implemented. The inspector had been under no obligation to make any express finding on the issue, and the appeal failed.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

 
Castleford Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 15 February 2001
15 Feb 2001
QBD

Planning
The applicant submitted three alternative proposals for residential development of a site. None provided a play area. No decisions were made, and he appealed. At the inquiry, the inspector rejected the applications on the basis of the absence of such provision. The applicants appealed saying that they had not been forewarned of the intention to take the absence of play areas as a point of significance, and they had not had opportunity to make representations on the point. The appeal succeeded. The inspector had chosen a point about which neither party had had any cause to think representations should be made.

 
Anscomb v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions Gazette, 22 February 2001
22 Feb 2001
QBD

Planning, Human Rights
The claimant sought to object to an inspector's decision to allow erection of a telecommunications mast. The failure of the inspector to consider potential health risks was not open to criticism because the claimant's papers had made no reference to such risks. A technical report which might have been considered had not been submitted, and the claimant's objection on human rights grounds failed inter alia on the grounds that the decision had been issued before the Act came into effect.
Human Rights Act 1998 6(1) 7(1)(b) 22(4) - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

 
Thurrock Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions and Terry Holding [2001] EWHC Admin 128
22 Feb 2001
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of Patrick John Benham-Crosswell; Katherine Anne De Benham-Crosswell and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 146
23 Feb 2001
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Staffordshire County Council v Riley and Others Gazette, 01 March 2001
1 Mar 2001
CA

Planning
The applicants sought to exercise an old planning permission which would have lapsed if they had not begun mining operations. The only act undertaken was the preliminary removal of topsoil as required by the permission. Held: This was insufficient to constitute the beginning of mining. Mining meant the winning and working of materials. Though the soil had had to be removed this had not contributed by making the material sought available. The loss of the top soil in breach of the permission would not have affected this issue, since this went to enforcement only.

 
Jones and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v North Warwickshire Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 315
1 Mar 2001
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Bedfordshire County Council ex parte Henlow Grange Health Farm Ltd Gazette, 22 March 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 179
13 Mar 2001
Admn

Planning, Judicial Review
The applicant owned a health farm. Permission was sought to develop adjoining land, and the applicant objected unsuccessfully, but the Secretary of State then called in the decision. In the meantime, the applicant sought judicial review of the council's decision, saying that the council had given weight to an irrelevant matter. The application failed. The planning system provided a comprehensive code for such challenges, and it should be used. Judicial review would exclude the public from involvement. The issues were as to matters of fact which were appropriate for assessment within the system.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 77
[ Bailii ]
 
Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 15 March 2001; Gazette, 29 March 2001
15 Mar 2001
QBD

Planning, Environment
A larch tree overhung a garden, but was protected by a tree preservation order. The inspector declined authority to lop it on the basis of its value to the amenity. The Secretary overruled this but his decision was, in turn, set aside by the court on the basis that it was first too indistinct to allow the parties to know just what was allowed, and also that in denying the damage to the amenity value, he had failed to give sufficient reasons for going against the inspector.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288


 
 Tapp and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Thanet District Council; CA 21-Mar-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 559; [2001] JPL 1436 (Note); [2001] 3 PLR 52; [2002] 1 P & CR 7; [2002] PLCR 6; [2001] 13 EGCS 151
 
J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v South Gloucestershire District Council and Others Times, 02 April 2001; Gazette, 17 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 450
29 Mar 2001
CA

Planning, Local Government
Where there was an agreement between an applicant and the planning authority under section 106 of the new Act, with respect the undertaking of work in return for the grant of planning permission, there was no requirement for there to be a direct link between the development and the works. If the agreement was entered into in order to restrict or regulate the development or use of land then it was vires.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 106
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Nottinghamshire County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Newark and Sherwood District Council [2001] EWHC Admin 293
29 Mar 2001
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Lichfield District Council and Another; Ex Parte Lichfield Securities Ltd Times, 30 March 2001; Gazette, 26 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 304
30 Mar 2001
CA

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice, Planning
The rules required a judge at trial on a judicial review case to consider the issue of whether there had been any undue delay in bringing the case. Nevertheless, where this issue had already been fully argued at a preliminary hearing, the judge could properly exclude a further attempt to argue the point. The judge's duties as case manager required him to consider whether new material was to be introduced, or a different aspect was to be put, some relevant matter had been overlooked by the first judge, or he had said that it might be reconsidered at trial.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (Jones and Another) v North Warwickshire Borough Council; CA 30-Mar-2001 - Times, 30 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 315; [2001] PLCR 31
 
Thurrock Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions, and Another Times, 03 April 2001
3 Apr 2001
QBD

Planning, Limitation
The land owner claimed continuous use for more than ten years, to establish a defence to enforcement proceedings. Such a defence was for the land owner to establish, and required him to show continuity during the period, allowing for exclusion of times when enforcement proceedings were not available. It was not appropriate to apply legal principles from the law relating to abandonment except when accrued rights were asserted.


 
 Wells v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; QBD 5-Apr-2001 - Gazette, 05 April 2001
 
Ramsay v Secretary for the State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Suffolk Coastal District Council [2001] EWHC Admin 277
11 Apr 2001
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
O'Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another Times, 17 April 2001; Gazette, 20 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 499; [2001] NPC 71; [2002] HLR 30; [2001] 16 EGCS 144
17 Apr 2001
CA
Thorpe, Buxton, Laws LJJ
Housing, Planning, Local Government, Housing, Local Government
A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The land was held under provisions in the 1938 Act making the sale of any part conditional on the consent of the respondent. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector refused the sale. Held: The applicant successfully appealed. Having examined in detail the operation of the two inconsistent statutes the majority of the Court of Appeal held that there had been an implied repeal. On the basis that the requirements of the Right to Buy scheme were inconsistent with an impliedly repealed the earlier Act. The later provisions were so inconsistent with an repugnant to the earlier Act that the two could not stand together.
Buxton LJ, dissenting said: "The court will not lightly find a case of implied repeal, and the test for it is a high one."
Laws LJ with whom Thorpe LJ agreed said that the contradiction between the two pieces of legislation must be 'inescapable' and that the construction of the later statute must be shown to be the only rational interpretation that is available.
Housing Act 1985 118 - Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (On the Application of Barker and Others) v Waverley Borough Council and Another Gazette, 20 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 566
20 Apr 2001
CA

Planning
A wartime aerodrome had continued to be used as such under a series of temporary permissions. The permission was continued after it was acquired by BAe, on conditions that use was personal to BAe and that it should revert to agricultural use after two years. After announcing the intention to cease the use as an aerodrome, BAe sought and obtained removal of the conditions. The applicant objected because they wanted the land to revert to agricultural uses. The removal of the condition was not so unreasonable as to be irrational, any legitimate expectation as to the reverter was insufficient to displace the other legislative considerations, and the council had not taken into account inadmissible matters. The removal of the condition stood.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 03 May 2001
3 May 2001
QBD

Planning, Land, Human Rights
Two supermarkets sought permission to develop neighbouring sites. The council preferred one, and set put to make compulsory purchase orders from the other to allow it to proceed. The second was later granted permission, and objected to the CPO. It was not necessary to give greater respect to the need to avoid Compulsory Purchase, and the need to support the preferred scheme was a compelling case in the public interest, so as to justify the making of the compulsory purchase order, which was confirmed. The test had not been significantly tightened by the Act.
Human Rights Act 1998

 
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Harvey Nichols and others [2001] 3 PLR 71; [2002] 1 P and CR 29; [2002] JPL 175; [2001] EWCA Civ 702
4 May 2001
CA
Pill, Dyson LJJ
Planning
Appeal by the second defendant from a decision granting an injunction (a) restraining the defendants from causing, suffering, permitting or assisting in the display of advertisements other than in compliance with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 ("the 1992 Regulations"), and (b) that the first two defendants permanently remove from the Harvey Nichols Department Store, at 109-125 Knightsbridge, London, and the adjoining highway the shroud advertisement displayed there.
[ Bailii ]
 
First Corporate Shipping Ltd v North Somerset Council [2002] PLCR 7; [2001] JPL 1444 (Note); [2001] EWCA Civ 693
4 May 2001
CA
Gibson, Buxton, Jonathan Parker LJJ
Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others Times, 10 May 2001; Gazette, 14 June 2001; [2001] 2 AC 295; [2001] 2 WLR 1389; [2001] 2 All ER 929; [2001] UKHL 23
9 May 2001
HL
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Nolan Lord Hoffmann Lord Hutton Lord Clyde
Planning, Human Rights, Administrative, Constitutional
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants' rights to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. Some decisions are properly taken by ministers administratively and they are answerable to elected bodies. Also there existed in many circumstances additional power to take such decisions was subject to judicial review by the courts.
The test of whether there is sufficient judicial control is not a mechanical one, but a test which varies according to the circumstances.
An interference with a claimant's use of property as opposed to his ownership, will not usually give right to an order for compensation.
In the absence of some special circumstances the court should follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.
Lord Hoffmann said: "The House is not bound by the decisions of the European Court and, if I thought that the Divisional Court was right to hold that they compelled a conclusion fundamentally at odds with the distribution of powers under the British constitution, I would have considerable doubt as to whether they should be followed"
Lord Hoffmann described departmental decision-making processes: "These contain, on the one hand, elaborate precautions to ensure that the decision-maker does not take into account any factual matters which have not been found by the inspector at the inquiry or put to the parties and, on the other hand, free communication within the department on questions of law and policy, with a view to preparing a recommendation for submission to the Secretary of State or one of the junior ministers to whom he has delegated the decision." but "the process of consultation within the department is simply the Secretary of State advising himself".
Lord Hoffmann explained that "in a democratic country, decisions as to what the general interest requires are made by democratically elected bodies or persons accountable to them", and that such a decision "is not a judicial or quasi-judicial act", but is "the exercise of a power delegated by the people as a whole to decide what the public interest requires".
Human Rights Act 1998 - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ House of Lords ]
 
Regina (Fernback and Others) v Harrow London Borough Council Times, 15 May 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001; [2002] Env LR 10
15 May 2001
QBD
Richards J
Planning, Environment
The local planning authority adopted a screening opinion that proposed development was not development requiring an EIA under the 1999 Regulations. About a year later it granted planning permission for the proposed development. Local residents challenged the legality of the planning permission. It was open to a planning authority to reconsider the need for an environmental impact assessment and if necessary to change its mind, but it had no duty to reconsider that original opinion when it came to determine the planning application. A screening decision by the Secretary of State was determinative of the need for an assessment, but a positive view of the planning authority was so in the absence a decision otherwise by the Secretary. The authority therefore retained a discretion but no duty, to review the need for an assessment.
Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (1988 No 1199)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Ramsey and Another v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Times, 15 May 2001
15 May 2001
QBD

Planning
Land had been altered to allow for racing etc of off road vehicles. That was granted a lawful development certificate. No permission was required for activities taking place for 28 days or less in a year, and the applicants sought a certificate to use the land for off road activities within that limit. The request was refused, and the court confirmed the refusal. The use need not be looked at in isolation, and when the proposed use was so closely linked with such changes to the land, the use on 28 days in the year could not be seen in isolation. The physical changes were relevant when considering the character, including the issue of frequency, of the proposed use of the land.
Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (1995 No 419)

 
Regina (Trustees of the Friends of the Lake District) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another etc Times, 17 May 2001
17 May 2001
QBD

Planning
The Secretary of State has the power to withdraw his decision to call in an application for planning permission under the section, where the application had seemed to raise planning issues of wider than local importance. Such a power was necessarily implied into the section, because otherwise he would be compelled to continue and make the determination despite changes in the circumstances which might make it inappropriate for him to do so.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 77


 
 Regina (On the Application of Lowther) v Durham County Council and Another; CA 24-May-2001 - Gazette, 07 June 2001; Times, 22 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 781; [2002] 1 P&CR 283

 
 Wood, Regina v; CACD 25-May-2001 - [2001] EWCA Crim 1395

 
 First Corporate Shipping Ltd (T/A Bristol Port Co) v North Somerset District Council; CA 15-Jun-2001 - Times, 15 June 2001
 
Tabram v Christchurch Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1131
20 Jun 2001
CA
Kay LJ
Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Fareham Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Others Gazette, 21 June 2001
21 Jun 2001
QBD

Planning
The landowners had a mobile home with a certificate of lawfulness, along with some outbuildings, and a fall back permission for a permanent caravan on countryside land. He sought permission to replace the mobile home with a dwelling house, removing some of the outbuildings. On appeal from authority's refusal the inspector granted permission, on the basis that development was replacing an 'existing permanent dwelling'. The authority appealed. On appeal the court held that it was within the inspector's reasonable interpretation, but he was mistaken as to the plans for the outhouses, and it was not possible to say his decision had not been effected. The decision was quashed and remitted to the Secretary of State.

 
Islington London Borough Council v Michaelides Gazette, 21 June 2001
21 Jun 2001
QBD

Planning, Crime
The council brought proceedings alleging breach of a planning notice. The defendant applied for a lawful development certificate, and upon it being granted the council withdrew the proceedings. Later it came to the conclusion that the defendant had misrepresented the extent of the use, and there were complaints about the noise. They withdrew the certificate, and sought to issue new proceedings, but based on the same situation. The defendant pled autrefois acquit. It was held that the prosecution could proceed. No adjudication on the merits had been made, and the withdrawal was merely administrative. The plea of autrefois acquit was not made out.

 
Berkeley v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Gazette, 26 July 2001; Times, 19 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1012
29 Jun 2001
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Kay
Planning, Environment, Planning
There is no obligation to refer every application to the Secretary of State where an objector raised a plausible argument that an environmental impact assessment might be needed. In this case the application did not fall within Schedule I, and nor was it in a sensitive area, and nor was it over 0.5 hectares, and it was not open to the inspector to conclude that it might require an assessment. Regulation 9(2) did not require a reference whenever a plausible argument was raised that an assessment might be required. The 1999 Regulations did comply with the appropriate European Directives and jurisprudence.
courtcommentary.com Desiderata in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 for separating major impact applications ("EIA applications") from those giving rise only to a lesser impact
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288 - Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 293) 9(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bhamjee, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another; CA 29-Jun-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1072
 
Berkeley v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Gazette, 26 July 2001; Times, 19 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1012
29 Jun 2001
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Kay
Planning, Environment, Planning
There is no obligation to refer every application to the Secretary of State where an objector raised a plausible argument that an environmental impact assessment might be needed. In this case the application did not fall within Schedule I, and nor was it in a sensitive area, and nor was it over 0.5 hectares, and it was not open to the inspector to conclude that it might require an assessment. Regulation 9(2) did not require a reference whenever a plausible argument was raised that an assessment might be required. The 1999 Regulations did comply with the appropriate European Directives and jurisprudence.
courtcommentary.com Desiderata in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 for separating major impact applications ("EIA applications") from those giving rise only to a lesser impact
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288 - Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 293) 9(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cala Management Ltd v The Scottish Ministers and Aberdeen City Council
5 Jul 2001
SCS
Lord Coulsfield
Scotland, Planning

[ ScotC ]
 
Racepeak Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions Gazette, 05 July 2001
5 Jul 2001
QBD

Planning
The applicant sought permission to develop former stables as low cost housing. The inspector refused on the basis that the policies regarding preservation of racing facilities in the area had been incorporated within the relevant plans, and that these were the necessary starting point for his examination. An appeal failed. The inspector's decision was a matter of his interpretation of policy, and this was within his remit. The requirements for preservation of horse-racing infrastructure could prevail over the need to provide low cost housing.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 54A

 
Regina on the Application of Alan Kathro; Michael Evans; Vivienne Evans; Patrick Grant and and Llantwit Fardre Community Council v Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 527
6 Jul 2001
Admn

Local Government, Planning

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
JS Bloor (Measham) Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions Gazette, 12 July 2001
12 Jul 2001
QBD

Planning
The applicant sought permission to build houses. The application was not determined, and the applicant took it to an inquiry. The Authority objected to the extent of the development, suggesting that two houses only was appropriate. Other objectors suggested that no development should be allowed under policies H14 and GE4. The inspector's refusal was overturned on the basis that he had not explained whether he ruled out any development at all, and had failed to differentiate between the two sets of objections.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 78


 
 South Buckinghamshire District Council v Flanagan and Another; QBD 16-Jul-2001 - Gazette, 26 July 2001
 
Dyason v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1194
19 Jul 2001
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bromley London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Others; QBD 19-Jul-2001 - Gazette, 19 July 2001

 
 Persimmon Homes (Thames Valley) Ltd, Taywood Houses Ltd, Bryants Homes Southern Ltd, Garden Villages Partnership Plc v North Hertfordshire District Council, Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions Interested Party; Admn 20-Jul-2001 - Gazette, 06 September 2001; Times, 18 September 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 565; [2001] 1 WLR 2393

 
 Mid-Sussex District Council v William Charles Boyle; QBD 20-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWHC QB 382
 
Harrods Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another Times, 15 November 2001
20 Jul 2001
QBD
Sullivan J
Planning
The applicant appealed refusal of the grant of a lawful use certificate, for the helicopter landing pad on the roof of their premises for use by the chairman. The issue was whether the use was such as to constitute an ancillary use. A restrictive interpretation so as to include the words “ordinarily incidental" would support Parliament's intention that material changes of use should be subject to planning control. The proper test was “ordinarily incidental/ancillary," not “incidental/ancillary". The appeal was refused.

 
City Logistics Ltd v Northamptonshire County Fire Officer Gazette, 09 August 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1216
25 Jul 2001
CA
Kennedy, Chadwick, Rix LJJ
Planning
Fire officers required the installation of an expensive sprinkler system in premises. The landowner objected, and appealed against confirmation of the fire officers actions. The court held that the purpose of the regulations was to protect people, not property. Conditions attached to a certificate which were directed not to securing escape of those in the building were ultra vires. Other improper purposes would the protection of the building and its contents, of fire officers attending a blaze, and those nearby the building.
Fire Precautions Act 1971 5(3) 5(4)
[ Bailii ] - [ Times ]
 
Carter Commercial Developments v Bedford Borough Council [2001] EWHC (Admin) 669; Unreported, 27 July 2001
27 Jul 2001
Admn
Jackson J
Planning, Administrative
The claimant brought proceedings in the Administrative Court by way of Part 8 claim seeking to establish by way of declaration that a planning appeal rejected by the Secretary of State in August 2000 as being out of time had in fact been commenced within time. Held: The proceedings had been brought in that form simply in order to circumvent the time limit imposed by Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules and ought therefore to be struck out. It was an abuse of process to seek to decide an issue of public law by means of a private law action such as an application for a declaration.
1 Citers



 
 Taylor and Sons (Farms) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Three Rivers District Council; CA 31-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1254; Gazette, 04 October 2001; Times, 16 October 2001; [2002] PLCR 11
 
County Properties Limited v The Scottish Ministers for Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 206; [2001] ScotHC 87
16 Aug 2001
IHCS
Lord Prosser and Lord Kirkwood and Lord Mackay of Drumadoon
Human Rights, Planning

European Convention on Protection of Human Rights
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]

 
 Macclesfield Borough Council v McMahon; CA 23-Aug-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1366

 
 The London Borough of Barnet v Secretary of State for the Home Department, McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd; Admn 23-Aug-2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 642
 
South Lanarkshire Council v The Lord Advocate As Representing the Scottish Ministers and others [2001] ScotHC 95; [2001] ScotCS 213
30 Aug 2001
IHCS
Lord President, Lord Prosser, Lady Cosgrove
Scotland, Planning, Land
Following a planning permission the applicant's land became subject to compulsory purchase, and they were entitled to a certificate of appropriate alternative development. An application was made, but much later, and then granted on appeal. The respondents appealed against the certificate as regards one use. Held: The grant may have been more favourable to the applicant than might have been the case if the decision had been made properly, but it was too late to resile on the decision.
Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (c. 51) 29
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Everett v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions, and Another Gazette, 27 September 2001
3 Sep 2001
Admn

Planning
The applicant had erected various buildings without permission. At one point, one of two enforcement notices was set aside on the basis that the use had been established for more than four years. Subsequently, buildings were demolished and rebuilt. He answered a further enforcement notice saying that the use had been lawful by virtue of the rejection of the previous notice. Held: The enforcement notice which had been discharged, related to a change of use only. The breach alleged extended over other areas, and so no lawful use was effective to resist the enforcement. The previous temporary permission was replaced only again by another temporary permission. Policy H21 did not apply.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174(2)(d), 191, 288

 
Swayfields Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 20 September 2001
4 Sep 2001
QBD
Rich QC J
Planning
The applicant submitted three plans for motorway service areas. Each was in the green belt. The inspector rejected two, but referred the first for further consideration. The decision was confirmed by the respondent. The appellant contended that that it was unreasonable to make a final decision rejecting the alternative when the referral had not been completed. The court held that the three applications were not interlinked. The plans rejected had been properly considered, and the inspector's decision was thorough and complete. The secretary of state's decision letter did not need to repeat the observations of the inspectors report.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288
1 Cites


 
Petition of Blue Circle Industries Plc for Judicial Review [2001] ScotHC 104; [2001] ScotCS 221
20 Sep 2001
OHCS
Lord Eassie
Scotland, Planning
Judicial Review was sought of a decision of a Reporter determining the Petitioners' planning appeal, to refuse to sist a planning appeal. The local plan was going to appeal, and the reporter wanted to await the outcome. The court did not find any procedural unfairness or impropriety warranting the interference of the Court; or any material misdirection in law on the part of the Reporter; or that the refusal constituted a decision which was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 47(2)
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Ceredigion County Council v National Assembly for Wales, and E D Harrison [2001] EWHC Admin 694
21 Sep 2001
Admn

Planning
The Council appealed a decision of the Assembly extending time for compliance with an enforcement notice from two months to two years. They believed that an error of law had occurred insofar as a 1973 permission had expired. The only works undertaken within the initial five year period were of demolition. The Act as it was required some form of construction, but that Act was amended to include works of demolition. Held: The inspector had erred in including preparatory works of demolition within possible works of construction. It was wrong to have recourse to the 1991 Act in construing earlier legislation. The statutory provision in issue in London v Marks and Spencer was materially different, the House had not held that "demolition" could be "construction".
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 56 - Planning and Compensation Act 1991
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Warwick District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Others Gazette, 11 October 2001
2 Oct 2001
Admn
Burton J
Planning, Agriculture, Animals
The second respondent extended their facilities at their abattoir to include more lairage. It was done without planning permission, and the abattoir was in the Green Belt. After an enquiry following a challenge of an enforcement notice, the inspector found that the damage to the green belt was slight. Removing the facility would not decrease traffic, and would compromise animal welfare. The authority challenged the decision saying that the inspector had not allowed for the possible reduced level of business which would follow the satisfaction of the enforcement notice. Held though the decision was criticised, the inspector had taken account of such issues and the decision could not be set aside.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

 
Joinglobal Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions, and Another Gazette, 11 October 2001
3 Oct 2001
Admn
Sullivan J
Planning
The applicant had outline planning permission for residential development of a green field site in an urban area. He allowed it to expire, and made further application. On the local authority failing to decide, it applied to the inspector who refused it. In the light of current policies (PPG3), such development was no longer appropriate. Held: Though the site was within a village, it had properly been treated as urban. The inspector had properly considered PPG3, and there was no justification for treating it as analogous to previously developed land.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

 
Salisbury District Council v Le Roi [2001] EWCA Civ 1490
3 Oct 2001
CA

Planning
Action to challenge erection of two buildings on agricultural land.
[ Bailii ]
 
Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another Times, 09 November 2001
9 Oct 2001
QBD
Burton J
Discrimination, Human Rights, Housing, Planning
When assessing whether a gypsy should be granted planning permission to park his caravan on a site, the authority could not take into account the fact that he had earlier refused an offer of permanent housing, where acceptance of that offer would have been contrary to the applicant's traditional way of life. The appellant and his family were Romanies who lead a nomadic way of life. The Inspector should consider whether: he lived in a caravan; he was a Romany; he was nomadic for a substantial part of the year; the itinerancy was linked to his livelihood; and he had an aversion to conventional housing.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 and 14 - Town and Country Planning Act 1990

 
Evans v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] EWCA Civ 1598
9 Oct 2001
CA

Planning
Renewed application for permission to appeal against rejection of claim as to permission for caravan sites for gypsies.
[ Bailii ]
 
Porter, Searle and Others, Berry and Harty v South Buckinghamshire District Council, Chichester District Council, Wrexham County Borough Council, Hertsmere Borough Councilt Gazette, 29 November 2001; Times, 09 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1549; [2002] 1 WLR 1359
12 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Peter Gibson And Lord Justice Tuckey
Planning, Human Rights, Housing
Local authorities had obtained injunctions preventing the defendants from taking up occupation, where they had acquired land with a view to living on the plots in mobile homes, but where planning permission had been refused. The various defendants appealed on the basis that the authorities had failed to make proper allowance for their human rights. Held: Some of the appeals succeeded, because the planning authority had to consider the defendants human rights before acting, and they had not done so. They had to be satisfied that the legitimate aim of protecting the environment outweighed the gypsies' right to respect for private and family life.
Human Rights Act 1998 6(1) - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rugby Football Union v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another Times, 08 November 2001
25 Oct 2001
QBD
Ouseley J
Planning
The owners of a rugby football stadium were not entitled to a certificate of lawfulness of a proposed use under the section, for the use of the stadium as an open air concert hall. The idea of a concert hall required the idea that it should be a closed area. Nor were attendees at such concerts or concert players taking place in 'Other outdoor sport or recreation' under D2(e).
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 192 - Town and Country Planning (Use Clauses) Order 1987 (1987 No 764) Class D2


 
 Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another v Wyatt Brothers (Oxford) Ltd; CA 26-Oct-2001 - Gazette, 08 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1560
 
Regina (on the Application of Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2001] EWHC Admin 839
30 Oct 2001
Admn

Planning
The court refused an application for judicial review of the grant of planning permission. There had been a considerable delay between the decision to make the grant and the decision notice, during which time guidance had changed. Held: The authority had considered the matters it was required to do, but as administrative acts of its officers.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Friends Provident Life and Pensions Limited v The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and Others [2001] EWHC Admin 820; [2002] 1 WLR 1450
30 Oct 2001
Admn
Forbes J
Planning, Human Rights
The application of the House of Lords' ruling in Alconbury that the exercise of the section 77 call in power was not after all incompatible with article 6, it was unsuccessfully argued instead that a refusal to call in a planning application under section 77 would necessarily be incompatible with article 6. Held: The obligation to call in a planning application to ensure compliance with article 6 would only arise in some cases, for example where there were significant issues of fact to be decided and because, therefore, the discretion remained largely intact, section 6 (2) (b) did not apply.
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Malster, Regina (on the Application Of) v Ipswich Borough Council and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1715; (2002) PLCR 251
31 Oct 2001
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of Carlton-Conway) v London Borough of Harrow [2001] EWHC Admin 873
7 Nov 2001
Admn

Planning, Local Government
The applicant objected to an application for planning permission by a neighbour. The authority authorised officers to exercise delegated powers to grant permission where no objection had been received. Even then the officer could exercise the power only where the development sought complied with all relevant policies. Here an objection was made. The officer mistakenly viewed that plan as complying with the policies and granted the application Held: It was for the planning officer to interpret planning policies and to decide whether there was a conflict, so long as he acted reasonably and in good faith. It was a subjective test as to whether the officer viewed the application as complying with the policies.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bhamjee, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transpost and the Regions and Another; Admn 9-Nov-2001 - [2001] EWHC 1010 (Admin)
 
Henry Boot Homes Ltd v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Anor [2001] EWHC Admin 942
21 Nov 2001
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Barker, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Bromley [2001] EWCA Civ 1766; [2002] Env LR 631; [2002] Env LR 25; [2001] 49 EGCS 117; [2001] NPC 170; [2002] 2 P & CR 8
23 Nov 2001
CA
Brooke, Latham LJJ, Burton J
Planning, Judicial Review
The court considered when time began to run for an application for judicial review where the question arose in the context of an outline planning permission granted subject to the approval of reserved matters.
The claimant challenged proposed development of the Crystal Palace site.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Diane Barker v London Borough of Bromley [2001] EWHC Admin 1038; [2000] Env LR 1
23 Nov 2001
QBD
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Latham And Mr Justice Burton
Administrative, Planning, European
The claimant challenged the grant of outline permission to develop the Crystal Palace, arguing that no Environmental Assessment had taken place. The need for one depended upon whether the directive had been properly incorporated into English Law. Did an outline permission and subsequent approval of reserved matters require an environmental impact assessment? Held: The Directive was to be interpreted so as to give it a wide scope. The reserved matters would affect the appearance of the site. The 1988 Regulations would not require an assessment for approval of reserved matters. Nevertheless the Directive did not require assessments at each stage of a permission. There is no lacuna in the Regulations.
Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 - Directive 85/57/EEC
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
J S Bloor Ltd and Another v Swindon Borough Council and Others Times, 04 December 2001; Gazette, 04 January 2002; [2001] EWHC Admin 966
23 Nov 2001
Admn
Justice Ouseley
Planning
Whether a planning policy was a general one to be included in the structure plan, or a detailed one to be included in the local plan, was a matter of judgement by the local authority, provided only that it directed itself correctly as to the meaning of 'general policies' as set down in statute and case law. It was not necessary for a general plan made by two neighbouring authorities to deal with land in both boroughs.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 31(2)
[ Bailii ]
 
British Telecommunications Plc and Bloomsbury Land Investments v Gloucester City Council [2001] EWHC Admin 1001; [2002] JPL 993
26 Nov 2001
Admn
Elias J
Planning
The land site to be developed was of archaeological interest and the relevance of a mitigation strategy was considered. Held: It is for the planning authority to decide whether there are likely to be significant effects on the environment warranting an environmental statement. They cannot conclude that there would be significant effects, save for the fact that they have required (or at least will require) the developer to take mitigating steps whose effect is to render such effects insignificant. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2, sets out the information required and requires that there is a description of the measures envisaged to "avoid, reduce and if possible remedy" adverse effects. The purpose is to enable public discussion to take place about whether the measures will be successful, or perhaps whether more effective measures can be taken than those proposed to ameliorate the anticipated harm. The question whether there are likely to be significant environmental effects should be approached by asking whether these would be likely to result, absent some specific measures being taken to reduce them. If they would, the environmental statement is required and the mitigating measures must be identified in it. In this case there would be potentially highly significant effects on the archaeology, unless measures are directed to eliminate them. Accordingly, the officer erred in law in taking these measures into account when deciding that no significant effect was likely.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
British Telecommunications Plc and Another v Gloucester City Council [2001] EWHC Admin 987
5 Dec 2001
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
RMC Eastern Aggregates (Eastern Counties) Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Another [2001] EWHC Admin 1006
5 Dec 2001
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Tilly, Regina (on the Application Of) v Government of United Kingdom [2001] EWCA Civ 2029
17 Dec 2001
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others [2001] EWHC Admin 1170
19 Dec 2001
Admn

Planning

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Edward Ware New Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 1131
19 Dec 2001
Admn

Planning
The applicant sought planning permission to pull down some buildings formerly used as a mushroom farm. The application was refused on the ground that it would remain available for industrial use. The applicant contended it would be low grade use. The inspector found that the dilapidated condition of the buildings made it unlikely that any industrial use would be economic. There were also green belt difficulties. Held: There had been evidence to support the inspector's view as to the viability of the use. The appellant complained that it had not had a fair crack of the whip, in that the report followed lines not covered by the enquiry. However those issues had been explored. The appeal failed.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 78
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 South Northamptonshire Council v Northamptonshire County Council; Admn 20-Dec-2001 - Gazette, 10 January 2002
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.