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 Divisional Court.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Lord Denning MR, in the minority on this point, postulated a broad general principle of estoppel or ‘blowing hot and cold’ in planning matters, saying that in 1962 the land owner had two inconsistent courses open to them: ‘ One was to apply for a grant of planning permission; the other was to rely on any existing use rights that might be attached to the site. Once they opted for planning permission – and accepted it without objection – they had made their bed and must lie on it. No doubt they did not know of the past history, but that was only Q because they did not choose to rely on it. They should not be allowed to bring it up again now.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR, Lawton and Browne LJJ
Citations:
[1978] 1 WLR 1241, [1979] 1 All ER 243
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and others QBD 1977
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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Estoppel
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.238433
