The House considered the concept of a spent planning consent.
Held: This was a mineral operation and every shovelful dug amounted to another act of development. Therefore, although it had been begun, the planning permission was not spent and remained capable of implementation. A planning permission enures for the benefit of the relevant land and it is not, save in unusual circumstances, personalised so as to apply only to the applicant for the permission. A valid permission capable of implementation cannot be abandoned, but it is planning permission is ‘a permission that certain rights of ownership may be exercised but not a requirement that they must be.’
Lord Scarman said: ‘Planning control is the creature of statute. It is an imposition in the public interest of restrictions upon private rights of ownership of land. The public character of the law relating to planning control has been recognised by the House in Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578. It is a field of law in which the court should not introduce principles or rules derived from private law unless it be expressly authorised by Parliament or necessary in order to give effect to the purpose of the legislation. Planning law, though a comprehensive code imposed in the public interest, is of course based on the land law. Where the code is silent or ambiguous, resort to the principles of private law, especially property and contract law, may be necessary so that the courts may resolve difficulties by application of common law or equitable principles. But such cases will be exceptional, and if the statute law governs the situation, it will be an impermissible exercise of the judicial function to go beyond the statutory provision by applying such principles merely because they may appear to achieve a fairer solution to the problem being considered. As ever in the field of statute law, it is the duty of the courts to give effect to the intention of Parliament as evinced by the statute or statutory code considered as a whole.’ and ‘It is of course trite law that any number of planning permissions can validly co-exist for the development of the same land even though they be mutually inconsistent. In this respect planning permission reveals its true nature – a permission that certain rights of ownership may be exercised but not a requirement that they must be.’
Judges:
Lord Scarman
Citations:
[1985] 1 AC 132, [1984] 2 All ER 358
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – White v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1989
W owned land which had been used for many years to store showground equipment over the winters. He applied for an existing use certificate. After refusing it, the authority issued enforcement proceedings. The inspector refused W’s appeal saying that . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council SC 6-Apr-2011
The land-owner had planning permission to erect a barn, conditional on its use for agricultural purposes. He built inside it a house and lived there from 2002. In 2006. He then applied for a certificate of lawful use. The inspector allowed it, and . .
Cited – Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The Court was asked as to the proper interpretation of paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework: ‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.238434
