The parties disputed the validity of the time-limit condition (condition 1), which required the ‘development to which this permission relates’ to be begun within three years.
Held: The Court upheld the inspector’s decision that this condition was invalid, in circumstances where the relevant ‘development’ had been carried out many years before. Lewison LJ said: ‘I cannot see that the decision notice granted planning permission for any prospective development. The mere widening of the classes of goods that were permitted to be sold by retail does not amount to development at all. Conformably with the definition of ‘development’ in section 55 the only development to which the application could have related was the original erection of the store and the commencement of its use as a DIY store. It was that development that was permitted subject to the conditions that the application was designed to modify; and it was the planning permission permitting that development to which the decision notice referred.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Lewison
Lord Justice Hamblen
And
Lord Justice Coulson
Citations:
[2018] EWCA Civ 844, [2018] WLR(D) 242, [2019] PTSR 143
Links:
Statutes:
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 192
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 3-Oct-2017
Challenge to grant of certificate of lawful use for premises for the sale of food (other than hot food).
Held: Lambeth’s appeal failed. . .
Cited – Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Others HL 1-Jul-2009
Mutual Knowledge admissible to construe contract
The parties had entered into a development contract in respect of a site in Wandsworth, under which balancing compensation was to be paid. They disagreed as to its calculation. Persimmon sought rectification to reflect the negotiations.
Held: . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Others SC 3-Jul-2019
The second respondent sought a certificate from the Council determining that the lawful use of its store extended to sales of unlimited categories of goods including food. A certificate to that effect was refused by the Council, but granted by a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.614902