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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 94 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002] JPL 1509
2002

Sullivan J
Planning
It is important that the need for 'very special circumstances' for allowing an exception to development control is not watered down.
1 Citers


 
Clarke v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council [2002] JPL 1365
2002
CA
Buxton LJ
Planning, Human Rights
The court referred to "the very difficult question of how potential family and cultural rights of gypsy and Romany populations interact with and are affected by the municipal planning laws of this country",
1 Citers


 
Downderry Construction Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Another [2002] EWHC 2 (Admin)
11 Jan 2002
Admn
Richards J
Planning, Administrative, Estoppel
The applicant had an existing planning permission. They sought and received confirmation from the local authority that the permission remained in effect. They then sought a certificate of lawful use. The letter confirming the permission had been issued in error, but the claimant asserted that the council were estopped from refusing the certificate. The inspector said the developer knew enough not to have relied upon the letter. Held: A public authority may be subject to an estoppel even in exercising its statutory duties in exceptional circumstances. Here the representation made by the council was clear and unambiguous, and the applicant believed it and relied upon it to his detriment. It was not justified to say he should have known the falsity of the representation. There is no requirement as to the reasonableness of the claimant relying upon the representation. The inspector erred in law and his decision was quashed.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 191 192
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Adlard, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others [2002] EWHC 7 (Admin)
17 Jan 2002
Admn

Planning, Human Rights

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Adlard, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others [2002] EWHC 7 (Admin)
17 Jan 2002
Admn
Collins J
Planning, Human Rights
The court dismissed a claim for judicial review of the refusal by the Secretary of State to call in, and establish a public inquiry to consider, certain applications for planning permission and listed building and conservation area consents which the local planning authority (the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham) had decided in principle to grant.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Thornby Farms Ltd, Murray v Daventry District Council, Derbyshire County Council Gazette, 15 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 31; [2003] QB 503
22 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And, Mr Justice Laddie
Environment, Planning
Two parties appealed against the grant of licences for plants for the disposal of animal carcasses. The plants would increase the amount of emissions into the environment. Held: An objective was different to a material consideration. An objective was something to be kept in mind at all stages of an assessment, and even when considering other matters. The objective of both the Directive and the Act was to find the best overall technique, but without incurring excessive costs. There was no requirement to refuse permission because there was no immediate need for the land or because the decision made no positive contribution to meeting the objective.
Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC as amended by 91/156/EEC and 96/350/EEC) - Environmental Protection Act 1990 7(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bovis Homes Ltd v New Forest District Council [2002] EWHC 483 (Admin)
25 Jan 2002
Admn
Ouseley J
Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Tesco Stores Ltd for Judicial Review of A Purported Decision of the Scottish Ministers [2002] ScotCS 29
30 Jan 2002
SCS
Lord Abernethy
Scotland, Planning

1 Cites

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Messrs RW Ramsey and JP Ramsey v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 118
1 Feb 2002
CA
Aldous, Walker, Keene LJJ
Planning

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Schedule 2, Part 4, Class B
[ Bailii ]
 
Ramsey and Another v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another Times, 04 March 2002; Gazette, 14 March 2002
1 Feb 2002
CA
Aldous, Robert Walker, Keene, LLJ
Planning
The applicant sought a lawful development certificate in respect of an off-road vehicle track created on their farm. It was said that the proposed use was temporary only. Held: In making their decision, the inspector and the judge had wrongly included the physical changes as indicating that the proposed use was not temporary. Such physical changes should only be taken into account where they were such as to make the reversion to previous uses more difficult. The Act described the tests, of duration, and reversion, and those should not be added to.

 
Reynolds, Regina (on the Application of) v Newport County Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 231
11 Feb 2002
CA

Planning
Listed buildings consent
[ Bailii ]

 
 MH Services Ltd v Secretary of State for The Environment, Transport and The; Admn 14-Feb-2002 - [2002] EWHC 283 (Admin); [2002] 9 EG 219
 
Ayres, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Local Regions and Another [2002] EWHC 295 (Admin)
19 Feb 2002
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and another v Thurrock Borough Council Gazette, 06 March 2002
27 Feb 2002
CA
Lords Justice Schiemann and Chadwick and Sir Christopher Staughton
Planning
Land on a farm had been used intermittently for many years as an airfield. The local authority issued two enforcement notices, one in respect of a building used as a hangar, and one for unlawful change of use from domestic and agricultural purposes to use for domestic purposes and as an airfield. The inspector allowed appeals against the notices, the second because of use in excess of ten years, and the first on the ground that permission ought to be granted. The Council appealed, and succeeded at first instance. The farmer appealed. Held: The appeals failed. It had been for the land-owner to show continuous use, if lawful use had not once been established. The inspector should have asked whether a hangar would have been required within the 1955 uses authorised. It could not.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174(2)(d) 174(2)(a)
1 Cites



 
 Bhamjee, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and Another; CA 28-Feb-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 311
 
Regina (Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd) v East Sussex County Council Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd v Same Times, 05 March 2002; [2002] UKHL 8; [2003] 1 WLR 348; [2002] 4 All ER 58; [2002] 10 EGCS 158; [2003] 1 P & CR 5; [2002] JPL 821; [2002] NPC 32
28 Feb 2002
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Scott of Foscote
Planning, Estoppel, Human Rights
The respondent company had asserted that the local authority had made a determination of the issue of whether electricity could be generated on a waste treatment site without further planning permission. The council said that without a formal planning application, no determination had been made. Held: The procedure of making a determination had important consequences. It was one stage of a statutory process, which required for several reasons that there first should be a planning application. Nor, here was there any material upon which as estoppel could be raised against the council. Estoppels may bind individuals, where it would unconscionable for them to deny what they had represented or agreed. But those private law concepts should not be extended into the public law of planning control, which bound everyone. Attempts to reconcile the law of estoppel in private and public law contexts were unsatisfactory.
Lord Hoffmann: "Public law can also take into account the hierarchy of individual rights which exist under the Human Rights Act 1998, so that, for example, the individual's right to a home is accorded a high degree of protection … while ordinary property rights are in general far more limited by considerations of public interest . . ."
Town and Country Planning Act 1964 64 - Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (SI 1988 No 1813)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the application of Leppard) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions Gazette, 14 March 2002
28 Feb 2002
Admn
Forbes J
Planning, Costs

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 320 (2) - Local Government Act 1972 259(5)

 
J S Bloor (Northampton) Ltd and Another v Warwickshire County Council [2002] EWHC 334 (Admin)
1 Mar 2002
Admn
Richards J
Planning
The claimant challenged the adoption by the respondent of a structure plan, complaining about the processes involved in the adoption.
[ Bailii ]
 
Harrods Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 21 March 2002; Times, 03 April 2002
7 Mar 2002
CA
Lords Justice Schiemann and Sedley and Mr Justice Charles
Planning
The applicant sought to allow the roof of its store to be used as a helicopter landing pad, and sought a lawful use certificate. It asserted that such a use was incidental to its main normal use. The secretary of state refused a certificate, against the inspector's advice, saying that such a use was not ordinarily incidental to use as a department store. The store appealed saying that the insertion of the word 'ordinarily' was an unlawful gloss on the statute. Held: The statute must be followed. A change of use normally associated with the operation of department stores in general would not be material. A proposed use particular this store, and had significant planning consequences, would amount to a material change of use. Neighbours might reasonably expect it to be subjected to the scrutiny of the planning procedure.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 55(1) - Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 A1
1 Cites


 
Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions v Waltham Forest London Borough Council Gazette, 11 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 330
15 Mar 2002
CA
Lords Justice Schiemann, Tuckey and Jonathan Parker
Planning, Human Rights
The house owner sought a lawful use certificate. He wished to use the house as sheltered housing for six people recovering from mental illness, with support from a resident carer. The rules allow such a certificate where there would be a total of six people living in the property. The local authority refused the certificate on the basis that there would be seven people living there including the carer. The inspector granted it on the basis that the change would not be so substantial as to amount to a material change of use. Held: The inspector was correct. The difference was not sufficient to make the change of use substantial. The comparison should be between the existing use and the proposed use, and there was no notional intermediate level of permitted use. If section 192 did affect the owner's human rights the section was a proportionate and legitimate interference.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 55 192
[ Bailii ]
 
McGowan v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Gazette, 11 April 2002
18 Mar 2002
Admn
Justice Sullivan
Planning
The landowner applied for planning permission to erect an extension. The Inspector rejected the application on the basis that the privacy and outlook of the neighbouring property would be adversely affected. His inspection had been limited, and had incorrectly thought that the neighbour's land included a patio area when it was in fact a flat roof. The land owner appealed. Held: The error was marginal in effect. The view was tentative, and the inspector had properly taken into account the effect of the proposed development on the neighbour's property. Appeal dismissed.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 78 288

 
London Borough of Barnet v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions [2002] EWCA Civ 529
19 Mar 2002
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Stroud College v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Gazette, 25 April 2002
25 Mar 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Harrison
Planning
A college owned land which it sought to develop for residential purposes. The officers supported the proposal but the committee and inspector went against it, on the basis that it would be a loss of an opportunity to a neighbouring football club to expand. The landowner said there was no evidence of any prospect of the club acquiring the land. Held: The inspector had failed properly to consider the probability of the club acquiring the land. Its offer had been rejected. The inspector had not explained her reasoning, and the landowner was entitled to know how the conclusion had been reached.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990

 
Hossack, Regina (on the Application of) v Kettering Borough Council and Another Times, 22 April 2002; [2002] EWHC 493 (Admin); [2002] EWHC 493 (Admin)
25 Mar 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Lightman
Planning
The landowner sought to use houses as temporary accommodation for young people in need. The council asserted that this use of each of the properties was "use as a dwelling house by the residents living together as a single household" under class C3. Held: The critical question was whether the individuals in the house had some connection with each other, over and above the fact of living under the same roof. That could not be shown here. The youths would not be a single household, and judicial review of the council's decision was granted.
Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (SI 1987 No 764) C3
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
B and Q v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Another [2002] EWHC 551 (Admin)
25 Mar 2002
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Head Mann Associates Ltd v Goode [2002] EWCA Civ 581
16 Apr 2002
CA
Kay LJ
Planning
Application for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
University of Leeds v Leeds City Council [2002] EWHC 738 (Admin)
24 Apr 2002
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Adlard and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretarty of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and others [2002] 1 WLR 2515; [2002] EWCA Civ 614
24 Apr 2002
CA
Laws, Arden LJJ
Planning, Human Rights
It was argued that the Secretary of State should have called in a planning application so as to avoid the risk of the local planning authority acting incompatibly with article 6. Held: The court considered the obligations of the Secretary of State: "The Secretary of State's obligation under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is not himself to act incompatibly with a Convention right; he is not obliged to ensure that other public authorities themselves act compatibly."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Westmorland Motorway Services Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, [2002] EWHC 847 (Admin)
29 Apr 2002
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Cousins, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Camden [2002] EWCA Civ 688
3 May 2002
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Lomax and others v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Gazette, 23 May 2002
10 May 2002
Admn

Land, Planning
The authority sought compulsory purchase of land which adjoined a motorway. An agreement was made before the enquiry, but the inspector felt that others who were not represented would also be affected, and recommended rejection of the agreement. The Secretary of State proceeded, after substantial correspondence including with the objectors. The objectors complained that though affected they had not been given opportunity to object as required by the rules. Held: For a breach of the rule to have taken place there had to be new material taken into account by the secretary which was causative of the decision, and that, if he had abided by rule 17(4), might have led to a different decision. In this case though the rule had been breached, the applicants could not show that they had been prejudiced in this way.
Acquisition of Land Act 1981 23(2) - Compulsory Purchase Rules 1990 17(4) - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 266

 
Willowslea Farm Kennels Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Times, 23 May 2002
10 May 2002
Admn
Justice Sullivan
Planning
The claimants operated a kennels from near an airport. They objected that the construction of an extension to the airport would give rise to pollution which would threaten the health of their staff and the dogs in their care, and sought the imposition to the permission that would require monitoring of particular airborne pollutants. Held: In an extremely long and complicated enquiry, the inspector had recognised the possible justice of the request, but had not had made available to him recognised standards or the means to support such a condition. His decision was not irrational or perverse, and the challenge failed.

 
Flanagan and Another v South Bucks District Council Gazette, 20 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 690; [2002] 1 WLR 2601
16 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Keene and Mr Justice Sumner
Planning, Local Government, Estoppel
The authority had commenced planning enforcement proceedings. At the hearing, agreement was reached between the defendant and the authority's representative, and the proceedings were compromised. The authority itself later sought to set aside the compromise claiming that its officer had acted outside his power. Held: The officer had power to compromise the proceedings in which he acted, but did not have power to withdraw the enforcement notice itself. No legitimate expectation had been created, and the doctrine of estoppel, which is a matter of private law, has no place in public planning law.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Adlard and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Fulham Stadium Ltd Times, 31 May 2002; Gazette, 27 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 671
17 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Dyson
Planning, Human Rights
The landowners sought permission to redevelop their football stadium. The authority were minded to grant the permission, and after an enquiry, permission was granted, but in the meantime another permission was proposed for a larger stadium. This was not called in, depriving the applicants of their opportunity to make their objections, and did not give reasons for not calling it in. The applicants sought the right to make oral representations. Held: The objector's argument came close to suggesting that any objector's argument must be heard by a public enquiry. Planning decisions are ones of expediency. Where the decision depended upon argument, rather than assessment of facts, the need for oral hearings was much reduced. The general power to determine planning applications is with local authorities, and the secretary's interventions are appropriate to achieve coherence and consistency. Appeal dismissed.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 77 - European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Adlard and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 735; [2002] HRLR 37; [2002] 2 P and CR 28; [2002] 1 WLR 2515; [2002] 4 PLR 1; [2002] 22 EGCS 135; [2002] JPL 1379
17 May 2002
CA
Simon Brown, Mummery, Dyson LJJ
Planning
Challnge to planning permission for Craven Cottage footall ground.
[ Bailii ]
 
Mid Sussex District Council v Boyle [2002] EWCA Civ 8447
17 May 2002
CA
Schiemann, Laws LJJ, Jackson J
Planning
Application for leave to appeal against injunction prohibiting stationing of caravans etc on land.
[ Bailii ]
 
Clarke, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and The Regions [2002] EWCA Civ 819
20 May 2002
CA
Buxton, Laws LJJ< Douglas Brown J
Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Staffordshire County Council v NGR Land Developments Ltd and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 856; [2003] JPL 56
21 May 2002
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham And Others, ex parte Burkett and Another; HL 23-May-2002 - Times, 24 May 2002; Gazette, 04 July 2002; [2002] UKHL 23; [2002] 1 WLR 1593; [2002] 3 All ER 97
 
Carter Commercial Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for The Environment [2002] EWHC 1200 (Admin)
27 May 2002
Admn
Sullivan J
Planning
Planning conditions should be interpreted benevolently and not narrowly or strictly.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Buckinghamshire County Council v North West Estates plc and others Gazette, 11 July 2002; [2002] EWHC 1088 (Ch)
31 May 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Jacob
Planning, Human Rights
The planning authority sought injunctions for enforcement notices. The landowner argued that human rights law required the court when looking at such a request to look at the entire planning history. Held: Although the court could look to a document directly referred to by a notice before requiring it to be followed, it was not obliged to investigate beyond such documents. A breach of the land owner's article 8 rights could cause a court to allow enforcement, but the basic issues involved in the planning decision underlying the enforcement notice were not to be put at issue.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Midlands Co-Operative Society Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and others [2002] EWHC 1090 (Admin)
31 May 2002
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the application of Carlton-Conway) v Harrow London Borough Council Gazette, 27 June 2002; Times, 11 July 2002
14 Jun 2002
CA
Lords Justice Pill and Robert Walker and Sir Martin Nourse
Planning, Local Government
The appellant had objected to a neighbour's planning application. Contested applications could only be handled under delegated powers where the permission sought would comply with the relevant policies. The application was granted because in the officer's mistaken view it did comply. On appeal to the High Court it was held that what mattered was the officer's subjective judgement. Held: The scheme under which the delegated powers were exercised allowed for no subjectivity. He did retain some discretion, but must at least make a full consideration as to whether it complied. He had not done so in this case, and the grant of permission was invalid. The later grant of the permission by the full council did not change that.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Bhamjee v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another; CA 21-Jun-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 987

 
 Bhamjee v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another; CA 21-Jun-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 914
 
Gopie, Regina (on the Application of) v Mayor of London and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1186
24 Jun 2002
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the application of Hossack) v Kettering Borough Council and another Gazette, 04 July 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 886
25 Jun 2002
CA
Lords Justice Simon Brown, Robert Walker and Clarke
Planning
A neighbour challenged the use of houses as temporary accommodation for homeless youths. The properties housed up to six youths, who, the council claimed lived together as a single unit, and therefore came within Class C3. Held: Nothing in the case law suggested that such a group must constitute a household before coming together within the house or afterwards. The small number of occupants made it more likely that they were a unit. The matter would be remitted for the council to consider again properly whether the groups were a single residential unit.
Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 C3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and another Gazette, 18 July 2002
25 Jun 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Sullivan
Planning
The land had had general B2 industrial use permission. Over the previous 4 years, it had begun to be used for the dismantling of vehicles. The inspector granted the permission seeking to impose conditions to ensure that it would be environmentally sensitive. The claimants challenged this on the basis that a reverter to the original use would also require permission which could be a better opportunity to control use. Held: Section 57(1) provided that where a use had been challenged by an enforcement notice, the reverter to the previous established use was automatic. Though an enforcement notice had not been served, the inspector correctly surmised that one would be if permission were not granted. Accordingly the inspector acted properly in granting the permission subject to conditions.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 57(4)

 
Young, Regina (on the Application of) v Oxford City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 990; [2002] 3 PLR 86
27 Jun 2002
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Chant v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Gazette, 11 July 2002
1 Jul 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Sullivan
Planning, Human Rights
The applicant challenged an order requiring him to discontinue use of land on which were listed buildings in need of repair. The authority had concluded that compulsory purchase would not be sufficient to achieve the result required. The land owner contended that such an order was draconian, and should not be made without additional evidence for its necessity. Held: The true requirement was that the authority was required to be shown to be decisively in the public interest. The continued use would have negatived the attempt to restore the buildings. The inspector had properly balanced the need to restore the buildings and the needs of the settings. His human rights to enjoy his property had not been infringed, because of the public need to restore the buildings and the owners rights, and he would be compensated.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 102
1 Cites


 
Fagg v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2002] EWHC 1327 (Admin)
5 Jul 2002
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Fagg and another v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Gazette, 18 July 2002
5 Jul 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins
Planning
The application was for permission to build a supermarket. The site was within a flood plain. The inspector granted permission, The appeal was on the grounds that he had failed to give sufficient reasons, and to take proper account of PPG 25. Held: The inspector had demonstrated that he had properly considered the issues. That he had not explained in more detail is reasons for preferring one view rather than another was not a matter of criticism, since this was a matter for his planning judgement. The failure to refer to a particular policy in his reasons could not be read to suggest he had not considered it at all. The flooding risk had not been a substantial issue at the hearing.
1 Cites


 
McGahan and another v Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council Gazette, 01 August 2002; Times, 30 July 2002
11 Jul 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Harrison
Planning
The appellants had a motorbike dealership, which operated under a planning permission requiring them not to sell or display motor-cycles on the forecourt. They were convicted of breaching that permission when customers and staff parked their own motorcycles on the forecourt. Held: The magistrates had considered that 'display' in the permission meant 'open up to view' or to 'exhibit to the eyes'. The appellants argued that something more was required, either an element of deliberate ostentation or of display of cycles for sale. They were correct. The magistrates had failed to look to the intention behind the cycles being so parked. They were not being exhibited for any commercial purpose. Conviction quashed.

 
Regina (on the application of Hammond) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Gazette, 01 August 2002
15 Jul 2002
CA
Lords Justice Schiemann and Buxton, and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Planning
The land owner sought temporary permission to use land near Gatwick Airport for parking. He provided evidence that such spaces would be required. The inspector found that there was evidence that such spaces would not be required. The judge held that the inspectors decision was not well founded, and his decision not sufficiently detailed. The Secretary appealed. Held: The criticism of the inspector was unjustified. He had been entitled to conclude each of the elements including that the land owner had failed to establish that land outside the green belt was not available for the same purpose.

 
Rugby Football Union v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another Times, 13 August 2002
17 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Longmore and Mr Justice Ferris
Planning
The land owner sought a certificate of lawful use for its Rugby Stadium which had been used as a concert stadium. Held: The court must look to the Order to see whether the proposed use fell within the same use class as the existing use. A sports stadium use was class D2(e), but a concert could not be regarded as use within class D2(b), since an open air ground was not a concert hall, and nor was use for concerts 'other sport or recreation'. If the class was not limited to exclude concerts the rest of the paragraph would be otiose.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 192 - Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987 (SI 1987 No 764)

 
Hertsmere Borough Council v Slattery and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1231
23 Jul 2002
CA

Planning, Human Rights

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B - uropean Cinvention on Human Rights 8
[ Bailii ]
 
J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Oxford City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1116; [2002] All ER (D) 458; [2003] JPL 45
30 Jul 2002
CA
Pill, Mummery LJJ, Nelson J
Planning
The company appealed against refusal of an application for an order quashing the decision of the Council to adopt Supplementary Planning Guidance on social housing, an order declaring that the Council was not entitled to adopt policies contained in the SPG as non-statutory policies and a declaration that the Council was under a duty to promote policies for social housing in a review of the Oxford Local Plan, including policies of the kind contained in SPG.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Ecogen Developments Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2002] EWCA Civ 1433
30 Jul 2002
CA
Laws, Jonathan Parker LJJ
Planning, Utilities
Renewed application for leave to appeal against rejection of application for plannng pemission to erect a wind farm.
[ Bailii ]
 
Watson and others v Essex County Council and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1434
30 Jul 2002
CA

Planning
Challenge to waste local plan.
[ Bailii ]
 
Wickford Development Company Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Another [2002] EWHC 1946 (Admin)
31 Jul 2002
Admn
Forbes J
Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Manticore Holdings Ltd , Regina (on the Application Of) v Ashford Borough Council [2002] EWHC 3119 (Admin)
6 Aug 2002
Admn
Richards J
Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
JJ Gallagher Ltd v Secretary of State for Local Government, Transport and The Regions and Another [2002] EWHC 1812 (Admin)
23 Aug 2002
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]

 
 JJ Gallagher Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another; QBD 23-Aug-2002 - Gazette, 19 September 2002
 
Lebus and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2002] EWHC 2009 (Admin); , [2003] Env LR 17
27 Aug 2002
Admn
Sullivan J
Planning
The court cionsidered the relevance of proposed mitigation measures insofar as they might mitigate environmental effects of a development in a proposed egg production unit for 12,000 free-range chickens. Held: It should have been obvious that with a proposal of this kind there would need to be a number of "non-standard planning conditions and enforceable obligations under section 106", and that these were precisely the sort of controls which should have been "identified in a publicly-accessible way in an environmental statement prepared under the Regulations" " . . it was not right to approach the matter on the basis that the significant adverse effects could be rendered insignificant if suitable conditions were imposed. The proper approach was to say that potentially this is a development which has significant adverse environmental implications: what are the measures which should be included in order to reduce or offset those adverse effects?"
Sullivan J said: "Whilst each case will no doubt turn upon its own particular facts, and whilst it may well be perfectly reasonable to envisage the operation of standard conditions and a reasonably managed development, the underlying purpose of the Regulations in implementing the Directive is that the potentially significant impacts of a development are described together with a description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and, where possible, offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. Thus the public is engaged in the process of assessing the efficacy of any mitigation measures.
It is not appropriate for a person charged with making a screening opinion to start from the premise that although there may be significant impacts, these can be reduced to insignificance as a result of the implementation of conditions of various kinds. The appropriate course in such a case is to require an environmental statement setting out the significant impacts and the measures which it is said will reduce their significance . . "
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the application of Lebus) v South Cambridgeshire District Council Gazette, 19 September 2002; [2002] EWHC Admin 2009; [2003] JPL 466
27 Aug 2002
QBD
Mr Justice Sullivan, Richards J
Planning, Environment
The applicant opposed permission for an egg-production unit, alleging that an environmental impact assessment was required. The regulations required a screening review to assess whether an assessment was required. There was no formal record of a screening review having been taken into account by the planning committee. Held: The failure to record the screening was a defect in the way the decision had been reached, and nor was the council able to allow the application to proceed on the basis that fuller details would be supplied later. In deciding whether an EIA is required, the focus should be on likely significant environmental effects rather than on remediation or mitigation measures; and if a decision runs two issues together and rests on the view that remediation measures will be effective to prevent otherwise significant effects, it deprives the public of the opportunity to make informed representations in accordance with the EIA procedures about the adequacy of such measures. The claim was allowed.
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999
1 Citers


 
Patel v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and The Regions and Another [2002] EWHC 1963 (Admin)
2 Sep 2002
Admn
Collins J
Planning
The claimant sought to set aside planning permission given to a neighbour to erect an extension saying that the decision had been based on a policy which was out of date.
[ Bailii ]
 
Patel v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Gazette, 03 October 2002
2 Sep 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Collins
Planning


 
South Bucks District Council and Another v Porter [2002] EWHC 2136 Admin
17 Sep 2002
Admn
Judge Rich QC
Planning
The court dismissed an application by the council under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 seeking to quash a decision of the Secretary of State given by his duly appointed inspector by letter dated 19 February 2002. The inspector had allowed an appeal against a decision of the council on 5 September 2000 refusing planning permission for the retention of a residential mobile home at Willow Tree Farm, Love Lane, Iver, Bucks. The permission granted by the inspector was subject to conditions including a condition that it was personal to Mrs Porter.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Laing Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Another [2002] EWHC 1967 (Admin)
1 Oct 2002
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the application of Reid and another) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Gazette, 17 October 2002
7 Oct 2002
QBD
Justice Sullivan
Planning
Planning permission was granted subject to conditions. Later one condition was lifted on a renewed application. It referred to the earlier permission, but not the earlier conditions explicitly. Held: The permission was not clear, and therefore reference to other documents was permitted, In that context, the application defined itself in terms of the earlier application, and must now be read on that basis, and the conditions not lifted remained in place. The court said it would be wise to set out conditions again in any new permission.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 73
1 Cites


 
Wandsworth v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2002] EWCA Civ 1927
8 Oct 2002
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Rank, Regina (on the Application of) v East Cambridgeshire District Council and Another [2002] EWHC 2081 (Admin)
8 Oct 2002
Admn

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Sabi v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1460
8 Oct 2002
CA
Pill, Waller LJJ
Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1370; Times, 15 October 2002; Gazette, 07 November 2002; [2003] JPL 431; [2003] 1 P & CR 19
9 Oct 2002
CA
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Jonathon Parker
Planning
The applicant sought a judicial review of a grant of planning permission. She said that in the considerable time gap between the decision in principle, and the decision notice, several elements had changed requiring the decision to be reconsidered. Held: Review was refused. The section required the authority to have regard to all material considerations in dealing with the application. 'Dealing with' was a wide phrase included anything done which bore in any way on the application, and included administrative acts of the officers. It could not be restricted to the formal actions involved in the grant of the permission. On this background, the authority had taken all the materials into consideration.
Jonathan Parker LJ defined what considerations were material in this context: "In my judgment a consideration is 'material', in this context, if it is relevant to the question whether the application should be granted or refused; that is to say if it is a factor which, when placed in the decision maker's scales, would tip the balance to some extent, one way or the other. In other words, it must be a factor which has some weight in the decision making process, although plainly it may not be determinative. The test must, of course, be an objective one in the sense that the choice of material considerations must be a rational one, and the considerations chosen must be rationally related to land use issues."
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 70(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Karausta v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Gazette, 24 October 2002
10 Oct 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Sullivan
Planning, Human Rights
The applicant sought planning permission extending the hours for her hot food take away after midnight. It was refused for the effect on local residents. She complained that the Inspector had failed to consider a shorter extension, and that another local shop did have such hours. Held: The inspector was not obliged to consider suggestions not put to him. The Inspector had properly allowed that the questions engaged the applicants human rights, but had properly balanced her rights against public needs. The possible comparator might itself later have conditions imposed.
European Convention on Human Rights 1

 
Fisher v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Gazette, 31 October 2002
14 Oct 2002
QBD
Ouseley J
Planning
The land-owner had permission to develop the land for residential purposes. He brought rubble onto the land. The authority complained that this was waste. The owner appealed the inspector's decision. Held: In making his decision, the inspector had taken into account some matters properly, but had wrongly rejected the applicant's own expert's evidence that the materials were to be used in the construction process. Appeal allowed.

 
Barratt Homes (Southern Counties) Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1578
15 Oct 2002
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Doe, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and The Regions [2002] EWHC 2269 (Admin)
16 Oct 2002
Admn
Ouseley J
Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Crockett v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Gazette, 07 November 2002
24 Oct 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Maurice Kay
Planning
The applicant built a shed on land behind his bungalow, but without planning consent. The planning authority issued enforcement proceedings. He appealed, contending that it fell within the Order. The inspector visited the property, and decided that it was not within the curtilage of the house. The land owner appealed. Held: Whether the shed was within the curtilage of the house was a question of fact and degree. The inspector had correctly applied the law, and also was right to amplify the evidence with knowledge from his site visit. His decision was not to be challenged. The statutory context of these and criminal proceedings was quite different, and there was no rule placing a similar duty of disclosure on the inspector.
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Sch 2 Part I Class E
1 Cites


 
North Cornwall District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Gazette, 14 November 2002
28 Oct 2002
QBD
Mr Justice Sullivan
Planning
A licensee of a shop erected a stand outside to attract buyers. The authority issued enforcement notices as regards the change of use to retail shop, and for the use of the stand. The inspector found that the change of use of the premises was within the use class, and the stand was permitted as a temporary structure. The council appealed. Held: Appeal dismissed. The interpretation of what constituted a display window sought by the council was too narrow. The change of use was not outwith a change permitted by the Order. The stand could be seen as part of operations necessary in undertaking that change.
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995

 
Prashar, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions [2002] EWCA Civ 1669
30 Oct 2002
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Epping Forest District Council v Mason and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1693
4 Nov 2002
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Earthline Limited v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and West Berkshire Council Times, 20 November 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1599; [2003] 1 P&CR 24; [2003] JPL 715
6 Nov 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Keene, Mr Justice Bodey
Planning
A mining permission, allowing extraction of gravels, had been given the wrong date for its termination. Under the original Act, the permission would expire in 2042. In stating the terms for the licence, the mineral planning authority had mistakenly set the date at 2001. No appeal had then been made. Held: The council had had no power to limit the extraction in the way it had. The issue was whether a subsequent operator had the right now to challenge the permission. The 'no certiorari' rule did not apply to an unappealed determination of the mineral planning authority. It would take very clear language to remove a right given by statute. A court has jurisdiction to grant a declaration, in a private law action, that a planning condition is invalid, and an invalid planning condition in a planning permission may be challenged long after the date on which the permission was granted
Planning and Compensation Act 1991
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hammerton, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Underground Ltd [2002] EWHC 2307 (Admin)
8 Nov 2002
Admn
Ouseley J
Planning
Planning permissions had been deemed to have been granted for the construction of the East London Line Extension to Dalston. It was proposed to demolish an historic goods yard with associated buildings to make way for the line. The claimant objected that the new line could be constructed to make good use of mucjh of the existing structures. HELD: Permission for review was granted, and the court declared that material operations had already been undertaken in breach of conditions of the permissions.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 90(2A)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Jory v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Gazette, 21 November 2002; Times, 03 December 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003
12 Nov 2002
Admn
Sullivan J
Planning, Land
The claimant took part in a planning appeal, objecting to a development. After the appeal, the inspector agreed different conditions, but without allowing the claimant to be involved. He appealed. Held: The inspector was obliged to deal fairly. The claimant was not entitled as of right to attend but had done so, and the issues raised were at the heart of the dispute. The inspector was entitled to come to his one conclusion, but having discussed matters post hearing with the other parties he should have contacted the claimant. Decision set aside,
Town and Country Planning (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 (2000 No 1626) 14(3)
1 Cites


 
Regina (Kate Ashbrook) v East Sussex County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1701; [2003] 1 P & CR 13
20 Nov 2002
CA
Lord Justice Dyson, Lord Justice Schiemann, Lady Justice Arden
Land, Local Government, Planning
The claimant complained that the respondent had failed properly to secure removal of an admitted obstruction to a public footpath. The landowner had applied for a diversion of the footpath, which the respondent recommended for adoption, but the complainant had objected that the respondent had failed to follow its own policies, in that it should have considered first whether the obstruction could reasonably have been removed. The matter was to be referred to the Secretary of State for a possible public enquiry. Held: The policy document was not formally adopted, but the council had not taken proper account of the existence of a continued flouting of a court order by the landowner, and the Order for diversion must be quashed and the Council must reconsider the application.
Highways Act 1980 119
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Robinson v Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and Regions and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1860
20 Nov 2002
CA

Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Murray, Regina (on the Application Of) v Hampshire County Council [2002] EWHC 2491 (Admin)
21 Nov 2002
Admn

Planning, Environment

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Medway Council and Kent County Council, Essex County Council, Mead; Fossett v Secretary of State for Transport [2002] EWHC 2516 (Admn); [2003] JPL 583; [2002] 49 EG 123
26 Nov 2002
Admn
The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay <
Administrative, Planning, Transport

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Linden Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Times, 12 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1737
27 Nov 2002
CA
Brroke, Kay, Dyson LLJ
Planning
The developer made it clear in his application that only a development on the large scale envisaged would be satisfactory. The Inspector refused the application, and he appealed saying the Inspector had not said what size of development would have been acceptable. Held: The Inspector was not obliged to specify what alternate scheme might be acceptable. He suffered no prejudice by the failure since he had put his case on the basis that only a large scheme was acceptable.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Henry Boot Homes Limited v Bassetlaw District Council Times, 16 December 2002; Gazette, 19 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 983; [2002] 4 PLR 108
28 Nov 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Keene, Mr Justice Bodey
Planning, Local Government
The claimant asserted that the behaviour of the local authority gave rise to a legitimate expectation such as to allow them to commence works in breach of a planning condition. Held: The circumstances under which a claimant might rely upon a legitimate expectation in a planning context will be very rare, and difficult to envisage, because of the presence of interests of third parties. The plea is founded in fairness, and the applicant here was experienced in planning matters, and knew exactly the risks it was running. Planning law is a matter of public interest; and the powers of a local planning authority cannot be fettered by private arrangements between developers and planning authorities.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sainsbury's Supermarkets, Re [2002] ScotCS 304
29 Nov 2002
SCS

Scotland, Planning

[ Bailii ]
 
Carter Commercial Developments Ltd (In Administration) v Secretary of State For Transport, Local Government And The Regions, Mendip District Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1994
4 Dec 2002
CA
Buxton LJ, Arden LJ, Ward LJ
Planning
Appeal from a decision that effectively was a decision on the proper construction of a condition in a planning permission.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Braun v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Another [2002] EWHC 2767 (Admin)
19 Dec 2002
Admn

Planning

1 Citers

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