The Council appealed against the quashing of its decision to impose certan conditions on a planning permission requiring the demolition of two hangars at the airfield subject of the application.
Held: The Council’s appeal failed.
Mr Justice Robert Goff set out the meaning of the subsectio: ‘The subsection provides that no enforcement notice shall be served in respect of such a development. It does not provide, as it easily could have done if such had been the intention, that no enforcement notice should be served on the Crown in respect of such development. It follows that, if a private citizen should subsequently acquire any such land from the Crown, he would not have to apply for planning permission in respect of development within the subsection. He too would be protected from the service of an enforcement notice by the terms of the subsection which are quite explicit.’
Lord Widgery CJ, Michael Davies and Robert Goff JJ
(1977) 35 P and CR 170
Town and Country Planning Act 1947 87(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
At first instance – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1980
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be . .
Appeal from – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 14-Jul-1978
The Council had, when granting planning permission for the use of certain hangars on an airfield, required that on the end of the use, the hangars should be removed. That decision had been quashed by the repondent’s inspector, and again by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.238432
