Planning battles had raged over the use of the former GLC County Hall. The question was whether it was desirable and appropriate to retain use of part of the building for London Government offices and centred on the ‘competing needs’ test.
Held: County Hall in London was not an office use, but was a Local Government use sui generis. A change to general office use was development. The competing needs test was rejected: ‘All that section 29(1) of the Act of 1971 requires is that the Secretary of State should have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. The amount of weight to be given to any material consideration is a matter for the judgment of the Secretary of State’. Afrer refering to Clyde and BWB Lord Keith continued:- ‘In my opinion nothing in either the Clyde and Co. case or in the Westminster Council case is properly to be interpreted as laying down that the competing needs test exists as a matter of law. Such a proposition would involve putting an unwarranted gloss on the language of section 29(1) of the Act of 1971. The most that can be extracted from the two cases is that the desirability of preserving an existing use of land is a consideration material to be taken into account under that subsection, provided there is a reasonable probability that such use will be preserved if permission for the new use is refused’.
Judges:
Lord Keith
Citations:
[1990] 1 WLR 744, [1989] 3 PLR 105, [1990] 2 All ER 309
Statutes:
Town and Country Planning Act 1971 29(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Clyde and Co v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1977
Planning permission had been granted for an office block, together with 8 flats as part of the same building. The building was largely erected, with the residential part incomplete. There was an application to change the existing permitted use of . .
Cited – Regina (Westminster City Council) v British Waterways Board HL 1985
The tenant occupied land next to a canal under a lease from the Defendants. The landlord opposed a renewal saying they wished to occupy the land themselves for the purposes of a marina. The tenant said the plan was unrealistic, because it would not . .
Cited – Clyde and Co v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1977
Planning permission had been granted for an office block, together with 8 flats as part of the same building. The building was largely erected, with the residential part incomplete. There was an application to change the existing permitted use of . .
Cited by:
Followed – Christchurch Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 16-Dec-1993
The council appealed against the inspector’s decision to grant permission to a construction company to build houses on land. The land had formerly been used as a school playing field and was now surplus to requirements. The Council wished to put the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.219457