Stancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority: QBD 22 Jun 2004

The claimants sought a declaration. Planning permission had been confirmed for four mineral extraction sites by letter in 1952. In 1996, two were listed as now being dormant. The claimant said the letter of 1952 created on single planning permision for the four sites, and that it was wrong to inlcude two properties separately.
Held: The claim failed, the claimant had not established that the permission had not lapsed. ‘it is not open to the court to make a declaration which purports to permit that which it was Parliament’s clear intention to forbid. The court cannot make the declaration in the terms sought under 3 and 4 while the list remains – or is read – in its present form.’ The authority would not have been entitled to rely upon an estoppel by convention, but in any event the case should have been dealt with by an application for judicial review and be subject to the strict timetables applicable to judicial review.
Moore-Bick J
[2004] EWHC 1475 (QB)
Environment Act 1995
England and Wales
CitedSalisbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment 1982
A planning permission given for the development of seven bungalows was construed as a grant of permission for a single development which could be spaced out over time. . .
CitedAmalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd CA 1982
The court explained the nature of an estoppel by convention.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law. But it has become overloaded with cases. That is why I have not gone . .
CitedNorwegian American Cruises A/S (formerly Norwegian American Lines A/S) v Paul Munday Ltd (The ‘Vistafjord’) 1988
A party may be precluded by an estoppel by convention from raising a contention contrary to a common assumption of fact or law (which could include the validity of a notice) upon which they have acted. . .
CitedCalder Gravel Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council 1989
The plaintiff’s predecessor in title had applied in 1946 for planning permission. The authority approved the application and for nearly 40 years all concerned had proceeded on the basis that outline planning permission had been granted. In 1984 the . .
CitedRedrow Homes Limited, Regina (on the Application Of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 3-Dec-2003
The case asked whether a single permission for a large-scale development extending over more than 2,500 acres could be construed as granting more than one permission. . .
CitedRegina v Caradon District Council Ex Parte Knott QBD 3-Mar-2000
A planning authority had already issued both rectification and discontinuance notices, and there was now no dispute with the land owner about the need to dismantle existing buildings, it amounted to an abuse of process further to go and issue an . .
CitedRegina and North Lincolnshire Council ex parte Horticultural and Garden Products Sales (Humberside) Limited Admn 31-Jul-1997
The applicant extracted peat from land in Doncaster. Planning permission had been granted in 1951. After a boundary change in 1994 part of the site remained in Doncaster and part came within the boundaries of Humberside which was replaced by the . .
CitedCarter Commercial Developments v Bedford Borough Council Admn 27-Jul-2001
The claimant brought proceedings in the Administrative Court by way of Part 8 claim seeking to establish by way of declaration that a planning appeal rejected by the Secretary of State in August 2000 as being out of time had in fact been commenced . .
CitedRegina (Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd) v East Sussex County Council Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd v Same HL 28-Feb-2002
The respondent company had asserted that the local authority had made a determination of the issue of whether electricity could be generated on a waste treatment site without further planning permission. The council said that without a formal . .
CitedClark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside CA 14-Apr-2000
A student had been failed after being falsely accused of cheating, but the academic review board, on remarking the paper marked it as zero.
Held: Where a University did not have the supervisory jurisdiction of a visitor, a breach of contract . .
CitedWestern Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .
CitedO’Reilly v Mackman HL 1982
Remission of Sentence is a Privilege not a Right
The plaintiffs had begun their action, to challenge their loss of remission as prisoners, by means of a writ, rather than by an action for judicial review, and so had sidestepped the requirement for the action to be brought within strict time . .
CitedThrasyvoulou v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1990
A building owner appealed against enforcement notices which alleged that there had been a material change of use of his buildings in 1982. This notice was issued by a planning authority. As a result of the appeal an inspector determined that the . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromStancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority CA 17-Jun-2005
In 1952, the Minister wrote a leter confirming the planning permissions for four quarries now owned by the claimants. In 1996, two of the quarries were separately included in a list of dormant sites, and in 19999 the applicant began to apply for . .
At QBDStancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority CA 24-Feb-2005
Recommencement of quarry works under old planning licence. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2021; Ref: scu.228572