The operator sought permission to erect a mobile phone mast. The authority failed to serve notice of the decision to refuse prior approval. The applicant wished to object.
Held: The applicant had been deprived of her right to make objection to the application by the authortiy’s failure. If the authority had communicated its decision, she would have had opportunity to object, but her sole ways forward now were either by way of complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, or an action for damages against the local authority. It was the planning authority which appeared to be at fault.
Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Wall
 EWCA Civ 101, Times 23-Feb-2005
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
England and Wales
Cited – Zander v Sweden ECHR 25-Nov-1993
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings . .
Cited – Friends Provident Life and Pensions Limited v The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and Others Admn 30-Oct-2001
The application of the House of Lords’ ruling in Alconbury that the exercise of the section 77 call in power was not after all incompatible with article 6, it was unsuccessfully argued instead that a refusal to call in a planning application under . .
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc and Bloomsbury Land Investments v Gloucester City Council Admn 26-Nov-2001
The land site to be developed was of archaeological interest and the relevance of a mitigation strategy was considered.
Held: It is for the planning authority to decide whether there are likely to be significant effects on the environment . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – Ortenberg v Autriche ECHR 25-Nov-1994
Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible) . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.222963