Planning permission was granted subject to conditions. Later one condition was lifted on a renewed application. It referred to the earlier permission, but not the earlier conditions explicitly.
Held: The permission was not clear, and therefore reference to other documents was permitted, In that context, the application defined itself in terms of the earlier application, and must now be read on that basis, and the conditions not lifted remained in place. The court said it would be wise to set out conditions again in any new permission.
Judges:
Justice Sullivan
Citations:
Gazette 17-Oct-2002, [2002] EWHC 2174 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 73
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Ashford Borough Council ex parte Shepway District Council Admn 7-May-1998
The court set out the general rule in construing an outline planning permission which was clear, unambiguous and valid on its face. Regard could be had only to the planning permission itself and any conditions and the express reasons for them. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex Parte Slough Borough Council and Another CA 23-May-1995
A challenge to planning permission where the development had exceeded the application was to be made promptly. Where an area covered by the permission is not specified, it was not determined by the application. An unambiguous planning permission is . .
Cited by:
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: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.263509