The court granted locus standi to an applicant to object to a grant of planning permission by way of an application for judicial review. The applicant had an option to purchase land nearby.
David Keene QC said: ‘It seems to me to be clear that both the Fleet Street casuals case and the Rose Theatre case distinguish between on the one hand the generality of the public, every member of which has a general interest in seeing the law obeyed and public duties properly performed, and on the other hand the person who has a particular interest in the matter above the generality. Mr.Michael Barnes QC, for the present applicant, accepts that he has to bring himself within that second category of the person having a particular interest above that possessed by the general citizenry . . It is clear on the authorities that if the commercial interest of a person may realistically be affected by a decision in a way not common to the general run of the public, then that provides not only a particular interest on the part of the person concerned, but also a sufficient one for the purposes of judicial review.’ and ‘The principle put forward by Mr Barnes is that someone who is or may be commercially affected by a development for which permission has purportedly been given does have a sufficient interest above that of the generality of citizens to enable him to bring judicial review. I accept that proposition, so long as there is a real possibility of such an effect and not merely a theoretical one’.
Judges:
David Keene QC
Citations:
[1993] 3 PLR 58, [1993] 68 P and CR 171
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co QBD 1990
The remains of an ancient theatre had been discovered during the development of a site. The respondent declined to schedule the building as a monument, saying a balance had to be found between preservation and the need to ensure the prosperity of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods CA 7-Feb-1997
The claimant renewed his application for leave to appeal against rejection of his challenge to the grant of planning permission for a substantial redevelopment of land near his home.
Held: Brooke LJ considered the interpretation of planning . .
Disputed – Regina v Somerset County Council, ARC Southern Limited ex parte Richard Dixon Admn 18-Apr-1997
. .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Merton and Newmont Properties Limited Plc ex parte Dorothy Driver Admn 21-Jan-1997
. .
Cited – Morbaine Ltd and Another v First Secretary of State and others Admn 19-Jul-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.224129