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 to be read so as to stand on its own; no reference should be made to the application which generated it.

Citations:

Times 23-May-1995, Independent 14-Jun-1995, Gazette 14-Jun-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedReid, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport and Local Government and Another Admn 7-Oct-2002
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.87719

Lever (Finance) Ltd v City of Westminster: CA 22 Jul 1970

The appellant developers had obtained detailed planning approval for fourteen houses, but after adjustments for a building line, moving several properties distances of several feet toward other properties, further plans were submitted without identifying the changes. The changes were discussed, and an approval noted by the developer’s architect. The development proceeded. A neighbour objected, and the officer recommended an application for approval of the amendment. The planning committee refused approval.
Held: The developer succeeded.
Lord Denning MR said that the case ‘should be decided on the practice proved in evidence. It was within the ostensible authority of Mr. Carpenter to tell Mr. Rottenberg that the variation was not material. Seeing that the developers acted on it by building the house, I do not think the Council can throw over what has been done by their officer, Mr Carpenter.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Sachs, Megaw LJJ

Citations:

[1970] EWCA Civ 3, [1971] 1 QB 222, (1970) 21 P and CR 778, 68 LGR 757, [1970] 3 WLR 732, [1970] 3 All ER 496

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSouthend-on-Sea Corporation v Hodgson (Wickford) Ltd QBD 1961
The Corporation had, by its engineer, said that its permission for the use of land as a builder’s yard was not in fact and law required. It was mistaken in this view.
Held: What the engineer had said could not create an estoppel preventing the . .
CitedRoyal British Bank v Turquand CEC 1856
The plaintiff sought payment from the defendants, a joint stock Company, on a bond, signed by two directors, under the seal of the Company whereby the Company acknowledged themselves to be bound to the plaintiff in pounds 2,000. The company said . .
CitedWells v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1967
It had been the practice of planning authorities, acting through their officers, to tell applicants whether or not planning permission was necessary. A letter was written by the Council Engineer telling the applicants that no permission was . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.262773

Downderry Construction Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Another: Admn 11 Jan 2002

The applicant had an existing planning permission. They sought and received confirmation from the local authority that the permission remained in effect. They then sought a certificate of lawful use. The letter confirming the permission had been issued in error, but the claimant asserted that the council were estopped from refusing the certificate. The inspector said the developer knew enough not to have relied upon the letter.
Held: A public authority may be subject to an estoppel even in exercising its statutory duties in exceptional circumstances. Here the representation made by the council was clear and unambiguous, and the applicant believed it and relied upon it to his detriment. It was not justified to say he should have known the falsity of the representation. There is no requirement as to the reasonableness of the claimant relying upon the representation. The inspector erred in law and his decision was quashed.

Judges:

Richards J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 191 192

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Administrative, Estoppel

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.168018

Williams, Regina (on The Application of) v Powys County Council: CA 9 Jun 2017

The court was asked whether ‘a local planning authority, when granting planning permission for a wind turbine, fall into error by failing to consult the Welsh Ministers upon the likely effects of that development on the settings of two scheduled monuments? And did it err in failing to consider the likely effects on the setting of a grade II listed church? ‘
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Lindblom, Irwin LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 427, [2017] WLR(D) 392

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.588333

Belster Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another: QBD 10 Jun 1998

A decision turning down an application but refusing costs order also was not inconsistent with allowing that the general need for housing did not displace need for green belt preservation.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Jun-1998

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.78328

Margate Town Centre Regeneration Company Ltd and Others v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 2 May 2013

Challenges to compulsory purchase orders.
Held: The Orders stand

Judges:

Sycamore HHJ

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 973 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Acquisition of Land Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromMargate Town Centre Regeneration Company Ltd and Others v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others CA 8-Oct-2013
Appeal against dismissal of claim for quashing of compulsory purchase order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Planning

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491916

Regina 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 enforcement notice which would have the sole purpose of depriving the land owner of any right to claim compensation. Such a notice could only be issued for a genuine planning purpose. That was absent here.

Citations:

Times 03-Mar-2000, [2000] 3 PLR 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedStancliffe 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.85165

Petition of Friends of Loch Etive Against Argyll and Bute Council: SCS 27 May 2015

Outer House – Petition for Judicial Review of a decision of the Argyll and Bute Council granting planning permission for the development of a 10-cage rainbow trout farm on Loch Etive in Argyll, at the site known as ‘Etive 6’.

Judges:

Lord Burns

Citations:

[2015] ScotCS CSOH – 61

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Planning

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547649

Suffolk County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Sep 2011

ICO The complainant requested information about a planning application, including correspondence between a specified council department and the applicant or his agent. The public authority disclosed the information it held, but the complainant remains sceptical that all the information has been disclosed. The Commissioner finds that, on the balance of probabilities, Suffolk County Council does not hold any information beyond that which has been disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Suffolk County Council (the council) has correctly applied the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR) to the complainant’s requests and has disclosed all the information, requested by the complainant, which it holds.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0356245

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Planning

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.530907

Dover District Council v CPRE Kent: SC 6 Dec 2017

‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a duty to be found in statutory sources, European or domestic, or in the common law? And what are the legal consequences of a breach of the duty?’
Held: The appeal failed. ‘Oakley was rightly decided, and consistent with the general law as established by the House of Lords in Doody. Although planning law is a creature of statute, the proper interpretation of the statute is underpinned by general principles, properly referred to as derived from the common law. Doody itself involved such an application of the common law principle of ‘fairness’ in a statutory context, in which the giving of reasons was seen as essential to allow effective supervision by the courts. Fairness provided the link between the common law duty to give reasons for an administrative decision, and the right of the individual affected to bring proceedings to challenge the legality of that decision.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 79, [2018] 2 All ER 121, [2017] WLR(D) 812, [2018] Env LR 17, [2018] JPL 653, [2018] 1 WLR 108, [2018] LLR 305, UKSC 2016/0188

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 2017 Oct 16 am Video, SC 2017 Oct 16 pm Video

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First InstanceCampaign To Protect Rural England (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council Admn 16-Dec-2015
The planning authority granted permission for a substantial development against the advice of its officers. Judicial review was now sought of the process.
Held: The request was refused. . .
CitedSave Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd HL 28-Feb-1991
An order allowing demolition of a listed building was possible even though the building itself remained viable. The function of the courts was to validate the decision making process, not the merits of the decision.
Lord Bridge analysed the . .
CitedClarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1993
On a challenge as to the adequacy of the reasons given for a planning decision: ‘I hope I am not over-simplifying unduly by suggesting that the central issue in this case is whether the decision of the Secretary of State leaves room for genuine as . .
CitedWrexham County Borough Council v Berry; South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and others HL 22-May-2003
The appellants challenged the refusal to grant them injunctions to prevent Roma parking caravans on land they had purchased.
Held: Parliament had given to local authorities exclusive jurisdiction on matters of planning policy, but when an . .
CitedWall, Regina (on the Application of) v Brighton and Hove City Council Admn 2-Nov-2004
Application for judicial review, seeking an order quashing a grant of planning permission dated by the defendant for the demolition of an existing house and its replacement by eight self-contained apartments. The notice granting planning permission . .
CitedSuffolk 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 . .
CitedMartin v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 27-Nov-2015
There is an enforceable duty, said to arise ‘ . . either from the principles of procedural fairness . . or from the legitimate expectation generated by the Secretary of State’s long-established practice . . ‘ on decision makers to give a fully . .
CitedRe Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .
CitedWestminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .
CitedSiraj, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Another CA 21-Oct-2010
A local planning authority’s summary reasons for granting permission do not present a full account of the local planning authority’s decision-making process. However, a fuller summary of the reasons for granting planning permission may well be . .
CitedHawksworth Securities Plc, Regina (on The Application of) v Ireef Queensgate Peterborough Propco Sarl and Others Admn 26-Jul-2016
Challenge to decision to allow redevelopment of part of shopping centre. Lang J made a general point about what she saw as the difference between a planning inspector conducting an ‘adversarial procedure, akin to court or tribunal proceedings’, . .
CitedRichardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .
CitedCherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Mole Valley District Council and Another CA 7-May-2014
. .
CitedHopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 30-Jan-2015
. .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
CitedRegina v Universities Funding Council ex parte Institute of Dental Surgery QBD 30-Jul-1993
When considering whether a disciplinary board should have given reasons, the court may find the absence critical ‘where the decision appears aberrant’. ‘the giving of reasons may among other things concentrate the decision-maker’s mind on the right . .
CitedRegina v Aylesbury Vale District Council and Another; Ex Parte Chaplin and Others CA 19-Aug-1997
A Local Authority need not give its reasons for granting a planning application, even where a previous and identical application had been refused. . .
CitedRegina v Mendip District Council ex parte Fabre 2000
The planning committee had accepted the officer’s recommendation: ‘ . . one is concerned with the members’ reasons not the planning officer’s, but where a planning officer makes a recommendation which is followed by the members, the reasonable . .
CitedBerkeley v Secretary of State For The Environment and Others HL 11-May-2000
The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for a new football ground for Fulham Football club, saying that an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been obtained, but was required.
Held: Where a planning application if . .
CitedOakley v South Cambridgeshire District Council and Another CA 15-Feb-2017
Appeal against rejection of challenge to grant of permission for development of football ground.
Held: A common law duty on an authority to give reasons did arise in the particular circumstances of that case: where the development would have a . .
CitedCampaign To Protect Rural England, Kent (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council CA 14-Sep-2016
Appeal against grant of permission to bring judicial review of a planning decision.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the permission quashed. Laws LJ pointed to three particular factors as calling for clear reasons: the ‘pressing nature’ of . .
CitedWalton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
CitedSecretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1976
An authority investigating an application for registration of rights of common over land has an implied duty to ‘take reasonable steps to acquaint (itself) with the relevant information.’ A mere factual mistake has become a ground of judicial . .
CitedKennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.599755

Hawksworth Securities Plc, Regina (on The Application of) v Ireef Queensgate Peterborough Propco Sarl and Others: Admn 26 Jul 2016

Challenge to decision to allow redevelopment of part of shopping centre. Lang J made a general point about what she saw as the difference between a planning inspector conducting an ‘adversarial procedure, akin to court or tribunal proceedings’, contrasted with a local planning authority as an administrative body, determining an individual application: ‘Its reasons ought to state why planning permission was granted, usually by reference to the relevant planning policies. But it is not conducting a formal adjudication in a dispute between the applicant for planning permission and objectors, and so it is not required to give reasons for rejecting the representations made by those who object to the grant of planning permission.’

Judges:

Lang DBE J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1870 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.567652

Campaign To Protect Rural England, Kent (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council: CA 14 Sep 2016

Appeal against grant of permission to bring judicial review of a planning decision.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the permission quashed. Laws LJ pointed to three particular factors as calling for clear reasons: the ‘pressing nature’ of the AONB policy as expressed in the NPPF para 115-6 (‘the highest status of protection’); the departure from the officers’ recommendation; and the specific duty imposed by the EIA regulations. Although he noted the relative ‘thinness’ of the material available to the committee on the viability issue, he relied principally on the failure of the committee to assess and explain the degree of harm to the AONB, having regard to the strictness of the policy and the strong view of harm taken by the officers. The only reference to this issue in the minutes spoke of the need to assess whether the advantages ‘outweighed’ the harm to the AONB, wrongly implying that it was simply a question of ‘striking a balance’. Further the reference to ‘minimising the harm’ by ‘effective screening’ took no account of the officers’ view that the change of levels to the east would mean that ‘over time, screening would be largely ineffective’.

Judges:

Laws, Simon LJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 936

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromCampaign To Protect Rural England (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council Admn 16-Dec-2015
The planning authority granted permission for a substantial development against the advice of its officers. Judicial review was now sought of the process.
Held: The request was refused. . .

Cited by:

CitedDover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.569493

Campaign To Protect Rural England (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council: Admn 16 Dec 2015

The planning authority granted permission for a substantial development against the advice of its officers. Judicial review was now sought of the process.
Held: The request was refused.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3808 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromCampaign To Protect Rural England, Kent (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council CA 14-Sep-2016
Appeal against grant of permission to bring judicial review of a planning decision.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the permission quashed. Laws LJ pointed to three particular factors as calling for clear reasons: the ‘pressing nature’ of . .
At First InstanceDover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.569835

Oakley v South Cambridgeshire District Council and Another: CA 15 Feb 2017

Appeal against rejection of challenge to grant of permission for development of football ground.
Held: A common law duty on an authority to give reasons did arise in the particular circumstances of that case: where the development would have a ‘significant and lasting impact on the local community’, and involved a substantial departure from Green Belt and development plan policies, and where the committee had disagreed with its officers’ recommendations.
Elias LJ said: ‘The significance of that fact is not simply that it will often leave the reasoning obscure. In addition, the fact that the committee is disagreeing with a careful and clear recommendation from a highly experienced officer on a matter of such potential significance to very many people suggests that some explanation is required . . the dictates of good administration and the need for transparency are particularly strong here, and they reinforce the justification for imposing the common law duty.’

Judges:

Elias, Patten, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2017] 1 WLR 3765, [2017] EWCA Civ 71, [2017] WLR(D) 105

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.575305

Siraj, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Council and Others: Admn 5 Mar 2010

Judges:

Langan J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 444 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromSiraj, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Another CA 21-Oct-2010
A local planning authority’s summary reasons for granting permission do not present a full account of the local planning authority’s decision-making process. However, a fuller summary of the reasons for granting planning permission may well be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.402539

Regina v Aylesbury Vale District Council and Another; Ex Parte Chaplin and Others: CA 19 Aug 1997

A Local Authority need not give its reasons for granting a planning application, even where a previous and identical application had been refused.

Citations:

Times 19-Aug-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2262, [1998] JPL 49, (1998) 76 P and CR 207, [1997] 3 PLR 55

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1970 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Aylesbury Vale District Council and Another, Ex Parte Chaplin and Others QBD 23-Jul-1996
There was no common law duty to give reasons for a grant of permission after a refusal. . .

Cited by:

CitedHasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 25-Nov-2008
The claimant appealed refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decisions to sell arms to the Israeli state. He lived in Palestine and said that Israel had destroyed his farm, and that licences broke the criteria under the 2002 Act. He said that . .
CitedDover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.86074

Riordan Communications Ltd v South Buckinghamshire District Council: QBD 18 Jan 2000

Where a permission required work to be commenced within a certain time period, and work was indeed commenced, it was not open for the planning authority to suggest that although the work had been begun, there was no intention to complete it, and that accordingly that the permission was revoked. It was held that there was no requirement for any subjective intention to complete the works at the time they were begun.

Citations:

Times 18-Jan-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.88789

David Wilson Homes Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Another: COL 24 Feb 2000

Land was designated as being of high landscape value and included in the green belt under the new unitary development plan. The council had taken into account a similar designation under the previous plan when it was not to do so, and had created a false dichotomy in its analysis. It had also failed to give adequate reasons from departing from the recommendations of the inspector. The designation as green belt land was set aside.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Feb-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.79826

Stevens v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 10 Apr 2013

The court was asked as to important issues as the approach of both planning decision-makers and the court to proportionality in circumstances in which a planning decision engages the right to respect for family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular involves the rights of children.

Judges:

Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 792 (Admin), [2013] JPL 1383

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

ApprovedCollins v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 9-Oct-2013
The claimant, seeking permission to use land as a gypsy and travellers’ camp site, appealed against rejection of his request for the quashing of the inspector’s report approving an enforcement notice. . .
CitedNzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472512

MWH Associates Ltd v Wrexham County Borough Council: CA 28 Nov 2012

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1884

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromMWH Associates Ltd v Wrexham County Borough Council UTLC 19-Jul-2011
UTLC COMPENSATION – modification order – review of mineral planning permission under Environment Act 1995 – basis of claim – whether depreciation of the value of land or loss of profits – Habitats Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471230

Telford and Wrekin Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 29 Jan 2013

Permission had been granted for use of a building as a garden centre subject to a condition in these terms: ‘prior to the garden centre hereby approved opening, details of the proposed types of products to be sold should be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.’ It was accepted that use as a garden centre was a retail use within Use Class A1, and that apart from the condition it could have been used without permission for any other use within that class. Application was made for a certificate of lawful use to that effect, The planning inspector found that the condition was insufficiently clear to exclude the rights otherwise available under the Use Classes Order.
Held: Leave to appeal was refused. Beatson LJ detected ‘a degree of tension’ between the approaches in the two previous cases: ‘The Sevenoaks case involved a condition that was considered clear and without ambiguity. Sullivan J emphasised the need for clarity and certainty on the face of the condition, in particular because a planning permission is a public document which is likely to affect third party rights and the wider public and on which they are entitled to rely, and because breach of a condition may ultimately have criminal consequences. Hulme’s case appears to take a less strict approach in the context of words in a condition Elias LJ (at para 31) described as ‘particularly opaque’. .’

Judges:

Beatson LJ

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 79 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHulme v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 26-May-2011
Permission had been granted for a windfarm, subject to a complex group of conditions, designed to mitigate noise, including (as it was described) ‘blade swish’. Condition 20 required the operator, in the event of a complaint from a local resident, . .

Cited by:

CitedTrump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 16-Dec-2015
The appellant challenged the grant of permission to the erection of wind turbines within sight of its golf course.
Held: The appeal failed. The challenge under section 36 was supported neither by the language or structure of the 1989 Act, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470625

Regina v Warwickshire County Council ex parte Powergen Plc: CA 31 Jul 1997

The council as highway authority had objected to a development on the grounds of road safety. The application was subsequently approved by the Secretary of State, but the Council sought to maintain its safety objection.
Held: The highway authority must co-operate in implementing a planning permission after a successful appeal against its advice that it was an unsafe development. The highway did not have continuing independent discretion to refuse to enter into the section 278 agreement.
Simon Brown LJ stated that ‘because of its independence and because of the process by which it is arrived at’, the inspector’s conclusion had become ‘the only properly tenable view on the issue of road safety’.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Otton LJ, Mummery LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2280, (1997) 96 LGR 617

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 278

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Warwickshire County Council Ex Parte Powergen Plc QBD 9-Jan-1997
The power to incorporate highway works in planning agreements is limited to subject land. Forbes J said: ‘It is common ground that the new Section 278 was intended to fit into and play its part in the overall legislative system for the controlled . .
Leave to Appeal grantedRegina v Warwickshire County Council ex parte Powergen Plc CA 30-Apr-1997
Application for leave to appeal – interaction of planning system and section 278. . .
CitedPadfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food HL 14-Feb-1968
Exercise of Ministerial Discretion
The Minister had power to direct an investigation in respect of any complaint as to the operation of any marketing scheme for agricultural produce. Milk producers complained about the price paid by the milk marketing board for their milk when . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Onibiyo CA 28-Mar-1996
More than one asylum claim may be made, but they must be sufficiently different to justify a second claim. The court considered when an application could be treated as having been finally determined and when it was necessary for the Secretary of . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Hutchinson; Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith HL 12-Jul-1990
Protesters objected that byelaws which had been made to prevent access to common land, namely Greenham Common were invalid.
Held: The byelaws did prejudice the rights of common. The House was concerned to clarify the test applicable when . .

Cited by:

CitedPortsmouth City Football Club v Sellar Properties (Portsmouth) Limited, Singer and Friedlander Properties Plc ChD 17-Sep-2003
Various contracts were entered into for the sale of land, with compensation being paid in certain circumstances. One contract required a calculation of consideration as a set figure less a sum to be calculated as the cost of acquiring land. The sum . .
CitedEvans and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Attorney General SC 26-Mar-2015
The Attorney General appealed against a decision for the release under the Act and Regulations of letters from HRH The Prince of Wales to various ministers and government departments.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The A-G had not been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Administrative

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142677

Persimmon Homes (North West) Ltd and others v The First Secretary of State and Another: Admn 25 Oct 2006

Judges:

Bean J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2643 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAshbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1965
The Minister had decided to confirm a CPO of premises which were now alleged not to be a house as was required by the legislation under which the order was made.
Held: The court can interfere if the decision maker has taken into account a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.245974

Lomax and others v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another: Admn 10 May 2002

The authority sought compulsory purchase of land which adjoined a motorway. An agreement was made before the enquiry, but the inspector felt that others who were not represented would also be affected, and recommended rejection of the agreement. The Secretary of State proceeded, after substantial correspondence including with the objectors. The objectors complained that though affected they had not been given opportunity to object as required by the rules.
Held: For a breach of the rule to have taken place there had to be new material taken into account by the secretary which was causative of the decision, and that, if he had abided by rule 17(4), might have led to a different decision. In this case though the rule had been breached, the applicants could not show that they had been prejudiced in this way.

Citations:

Gazette 23-May-2002

Statutes:

Acquisition of Land Act 1981 23(2), Compulsory Purchase Rules 1990 17(4), Town and Country Planning Act 1990 266

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Planning

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.171267

Willowslea Farm Kennels Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another: Admn 10 May 2002

The claimants operated a kennels from near an airport. They objected that the construction of an extension to the airport would give rise to pollution which would threaten the health of their staff and the dogs in their care, and sought the imposition to the permission that would require monitoring of particular airborne pollutants.
Held: In an extremely long and complicated enquiry, the inspector had recognised the possible justice of the request, but had not had made available to him recognised standards or the means to support such a condition. His decision was not irrational or perverse, and the challenge failed.

Judges:

Justice Sullivan

Citations:

Times 23-May-2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.171288

Loader, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Goverment and Others: CA 29 Jun 2012

Pill LJ considered the adoption of screening opinions by local planning authorities: ‘Mr Maurici [for the Secretary of State] accepted that screening decisions will usually be made at an early stage of the planning process. However, if a council came to the belief during the course of making the decision that the proposed development might have significant effects on the environment it would be open to the council to require an environmental statement at that stage . . ‘

Judges:

Pill LJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 869

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedChampion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461769

Shimizu (UK) Ltd v Westminster City Council: CA 20 Dec 1994

The phrases ‘demolition’ and ‘alteration’ are mutually exclusive concepts when used for the purposes of the Planning Acts.
Held: When section 27(1)(a) referred to ‘an application for . . consent for the alteration . . of a listed building’, the words in their context did not include an application for consent for works which consisted of or included demolition of part of a building. The concepts of ‘demolition’ and ‘alteration’ were mutually exclusive, to the extent of precluding the demolition of a part of the building from amounting to an alteration of the whole. Millett LJ said: This was with reluctance and regret, but he was persuaded that the opposite view could not be maintained in view of the provisions of section 8 of the Act, as they dealt separately with the authorisation of works of alteration or extension on the one hand and works of demolition on the other.
Russell LJ (dissenting) said that the question whether a particular activity was ‘demolition’ or ‘alteration’ of a building was essentially a question of fact to be determined in the light of all the relevant circumstances, that the court should not interfere in the finding of the Lands Tribunal if the member was entitled on the material before him to reach he conclusion that he did and that, as he was entitled to reach that conclusion, his decision should not be disturbed.

Judges:

Millett LJ and Sir Ralph Gibson, Russell LJ dissenting

Citations:

Ind Summary 13-Feb-1995

Statutes:

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromShimizu (UK) Ltd v Westminster City Council HL 11-Feb-1997
The removal of a listed building’s chimney stacks was an alteration allowing a claim for compensation. The phrases ‘alteration’ and ‘demolition’ are mutually exclusive. Although part of a building may be a listed building, a part of a listed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.89239

Wheeler and Another v JJ Saunders Ltd and Others: CA 19 Dec 1994

The existence of a planning permission did not excuse the causing of a nuisance by the erection of a pighouse. The permission was not a statutory authority, and particularly so where it was possible it had been procured by the supply of inaccurate and incomplete information.
The court considered the function of a gate: ‘The function of a gate is different from that of a fence. A gate is intended to prevent ingress and egress only when it is shut. It is of the essence of a gate that it can be opened whereas a fence cannot be opened and . . the covenant to fence does not refer to a gate.’ (Peter Gibson LJ)
Staughton LJ considered the significance of planing permissions as to nuisance: ‘One can readily appreciate that planning permission will, quite frequently, have unpleasant consequences for some people. The man with a view over open fields from his window may well be displeased if a housing estate is authorised by the planners and built in front of his house; the character of the neighbourhood is changed. But there may be nothing which would qualify as a nuisance and no infringement of his civil rights. What if the development does inevitably create what would otherwise be a nuisance? Instead of a housing estate the planners may authorise a factory which would emit noise and smoke to the detriment of neighbouring residents. Does that come within the first proposition of Cumming-Bruce LJ, that a planning authority has no jurisdiction to authorise a nuisance? Or is it within the second, that the authority may change the character of a neighbourhood?’ and
‘It would in my opinion be a misuse of language to describe what has happened in the present case as a change in the character of a neighbourhood. It is a change of use of a very small piece of land, a little over 350 square metres according to the dimensions on the plan, for the benefit of the applicant and to the detriment of the objectors in the quiet enjoyment of their house. It is not a strategic planning decision affected by considerations of public interest. Unless one is prepared to accept that any planning decision authorises any nuisance which must inevitably come from it, the argument that the nuisance was authorised by planning permission in this case must fail. I am not prepared to accept that premise. It may be – I express no concluded opinion – that some planning decisions will authorise some nuisances. But that is as far as I am prepared to go.’

Judges:

Staughton LJ, Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

Times 03-Jan-1995, [1996] Ch 19, [1994] EWCA Civ 8, [1994] EWCA Civ 32, [1995] 3 WLR 466, [1995] 2 All ER 697

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWestminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .
CitedGillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd CA 1992
Neighbours complained at the development of a new commercial port on the site of a disused naval dockyard. Heavy vehicle traffic at night had a seriously deleterious effect on the comfort of local residents.
Held: Although a planning consent . .
CitedAllen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd CA 1980
The exercise of the permission to develop granted by the local planning authority may have the result that the character of the neighbourhood changes and that which would previously have been a nuisance must be held no longer to be so

Cited by:

CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
CitedAdam v Shrewsbury, Shrewsbury CA 28-Jul-2005
The neighbour parties disputed the existence of a right of way over one plot. The grant was for the use of a garage yet to be constructed, on ground to be excavated by the grantor, accessible only from a roadway which was only partly constructed, at . .
CitedWatson and others v Croft Promo-Sport Ltd CA 26-Jan-2009
The claimants were neighbours of the Croft motor racing circuit. They alleged nuisance in the levels of noise emanating from the site. The defendants denied nuisance saying that the interference was deemed reasonable since they operated within the . .
CitedLawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. . .
CitedCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Planning, Land, Nuisance

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.90439

Huggett v Secretary of State for the Environment Etc; Wendy Fair Markets Ltd v Same; Bello v Etc: CA 1 Mar 1995

There is no power for Court of Appeal itself to give leave to appeal after High Court’s refusal of leave on an enforcement notice. The court rejected the applicant’s submission that a High Court judge’s decision refusing permission to appeal under section 289 fell within section 16 of the 1981 Act. The Master of the Rolls, with whom Kennedy and Millett LJJ agreed, said: ‘The difficulty which faces her with that submission is that although, as Miss Ellis rightly observes, none of the reported cases have arisen in the planning field, there is a considerable body of authority which makes it plain that appeals against refusals of leave to appeal to the court below are not something which the higher court has jurisdiction to entertain. The relevant line of authority begins with Lane v Esdaile (1891) AC 210, continues through Ex Parte Stevenson (1892) 1 QB 609, embraces Bland v Chief Suppelentary Benefit Officer [1983] 1 WLR 262, and perhaps ends with Geogas SA v Trammo Gas Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 776. Those authorities make plain that a decision of this kind refusing leave to appeal to the court below does not give rise to an order or judgment of a kind which can be challenged in the court above. The matter was clearly put by Fry J in Ex parte Stevenson at p.611, where he said: ‘The Judicature Act has given a general right of appeal to this court from judgments and orders of the High Court or any Judge or Judges thereof. The question is whether that provision applies to a refusal of leave to submit the question of compensation to a jury under this Act.’ He concluded that the sort of question which arises in this instance is not such as can give rise to jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by the superior court, and he described the object of the legislation at p.612 as being to make the grant or refusal of leave final. The same point was made by Sir John Donaldson MR in Bland v Chief Supplementary Benefit Officer at p.267 where, referring to s. 14 of the Social Security Act 1980, he said: ‘I would accept that in a sense the grant or refusal of leave to appeal to the Commissioner is a decision, just as in Ex parte Stevenson [1982] 1 QB, 609 it was accepted that the grant or refusal of leave to appeal was an order of the High Court, but it is not the kind of decision which, in my judgment, s.14 contemplate.’ Very much the same point was made by the House of Lords in the most recent case, which is Geogas.
Miss Ellis urged that a purposive approach is appropriate in considering the combined effect of s.16(1) and s.289(6). I agree with that, although I am bound to say that adopting a purposive approach is in my judgment fatal to her argument. All the cases have emphasized that the requirement of leave is intended to deter frivolous or unmeritorious appeals and that this object would be frustrated were the refusal of leave itself to be the subject of appeal. As Lord Jauncey observed in Geogas SA. v Tammo Gas Ltd at p.780H with reference to s.1 of the Arbitration Act 1979: ‘No appeal lies to the Court of Appeal unless the High Court or Court of Appeal gives leave. The legislative intention of limited review would be rendered nugatory if appeals were to lie to the Court of Appeal and then to this House against a decision of a Judge refusing or granting leave to appeal an award to the High Court and if an appeal were to lie against a decision of the Court of Appeal to refuse or grant leave to appeal from the High Court to itself under s.1(7).’
That observation is I think entirely consistent with the purposive construction which has been put on similar provisions in all the cases that I have mentioned.
Miss Ellis did contend, in looking at s.289, that it would lead to the risk of discrepancy and inconsistent decisions if an appeal could be brought without any leave at all under s.288 but a refusal of leave could not be challenged under s.289. For my part, I consider that the answer to that submission is the answer Mr Richards gives on behalf of the Secretary of State, which is that there is a plain disparity between the two sections. One imposes a requirement of leave; the other does not. The legislature must have intended the procedures to be different, because the provisions of the two sections are different, and I cannot see any intention that there should be less dissimilarity between these two sections than the language would itself suggest.
The second main argument which Miss Ellis advanced was based on s.289(6) itself. She submitted that on a plain reading this conveyed the impression that there was intended to be a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal against any decision of the High Court, and that accordingly one should give effect to that legislative intention. She did suggest that it was a matter of impression, and I am bound to say, for what it is worth, that my own impression is unfavourable to her submission. But I think that there are powerful reasons for holding as a matter of construction that her submission is wrong. The first is, as initially drafted before the amendment, subs.(6) cannot have been intended to embrace an appeal against the refusal of leave by the High Court, because there was then no requirement to obtain leave from the High Court. She is therefore obliged to say that the second half of the subsection bears a different meaning after the amendment from the meaning it bore before. There, however, are additional points, one of which is that when the legislature wished to make it clear that a decision was to be regarded as a decision falling within s.16 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, that was made plain as in the case of subs.(4). Furthermore, it would appear to me right to assume that, when subs.(6) was drafted, the parliamentary draftsman responsible for the provision would have been well aware of the meaning which had for a hundred years been put on a provision of this kind by courts at all levels. In other words, it must have been appreciated that if leave to appeal were refused by the High Court there would be no jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal to entertain an appeal against that refusal of leave . . Therefore, well though Miss Ellis developed her arguments, it appears to me impossible on the strength of those arguments alone to accept the conclusion that she would urge upon us.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Kennedy and Millett LJJ

Citations:

Times 01-Mar-1995, [1995] 159 LGLR 769

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 289-6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLane v Esdaile HL 5-May-1891
The court considered the extent of the House’s jurisdiction as an appellate court. Section 3 of the 1876 Act provided that an appeal should lie to the House of Lords from ‘any order or judgment of . . Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England’. The . .
CitedIn re Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, Ex parte Stevenson CA 1892
A party had applied to a judge for what in effect amounted to leave to appeal and had been refused.
Held: Wherever power is given to a legal authority to grant or refuse leave to appeal, the decision of that authority is, from the very nature . .
CitedGeogas SA v Trammo Gas Ltd (The Baleares) CA 26-Nov-1990
Judge Wrong to Accept Appeal of Fact
The charterers had sought to appeal the arbitrators’ findings on foreseeability and remoteness. The judge had set aside the arbitration award. Though he certified that a point of law existed which was of general public importance, he had refused . .
CitedBland v Chief Supplementary Benefit Officer SSCS 1-Dec-1982
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a ruling of the Social Security Commissioner. The tibunal was asked if the Court of Appeal any jurisdiction to give leave to appeal from the refusal of a Social Security Commissioner to . .

Cited by:

CitedWalsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government CA 6-Feb-2013
The Council sought permission to appeal against the setting aside of two enforcement notices, leave having been refused by the Administrative court. The court now considered whether it had jusridiction, and whether the rule in Lane v Esdaile was to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.81515

Christchurch Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment: CA 16 Dec 1993

The council appealed against the inspector’s decision to grant permission to a construction company to build houses on land. The land had formerly been used as a school playing field and was now surplus to requirements. The Council wished to put the land to recreational uses. They said the inspector had failed to ask whether the existing informal land use would continue if the permission had been refused, and also to give reasons for his implicit conclusion that one planning use was more beneficial than the other.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The inspector should not have felt bound by the competing use test formulated in British Waterways. His task was to whether the relevant objections outweighed the presumption if one did arise, together with any other material consicerations. The inspector had not dealt with the existing use and potential use as public open land. A planning decision can be quashed if the inspector fails properly to assess the actual use of land. ‘The planning system fails in its function whenever it prevents, inhibits or delays development which can reasonably be permitted. There is always a presumption in favour of allowing applications for development, having regard to all material considerations, unless that development would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance . .’
Although the inspector’s duty was to decide whether the application should be granted or refused on the basis of the evidence before him, he had failed to complete his task because it was crucial for those who were dealing with the site in question to know whether there would continue to be formal or informal free access by members of the public to the site. Thus there was, as well as the primary task which the inspector had to perform a secondary task which he was not only expected to perform but which was a crucial feature of the decision which he had to make.

Judges:

Ralph Gibson LJ, Evans LJ, Sir John Megaw

Citations:

Times 05-Jan-1994, [1993] NPC 167, [1994] 68 P and CR 116

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina (Westminster City Council) v British Waterways Board HL 1985
The tenant occupied land next to a canal under a lease from the Defendants. The landlord opposed a renewal saying they wished to occupy the land themselves for the purposes of a marina. The tenant said the plan was unrealistic, because it would not . .
CitedFederated Estates Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment and Gillingham Borough Council 1983
‘There was no obligation on an inspector to undertake an investigatory role, though he had certain powers to call for information if he considered it necessary. He should arrive at his conclusions on the basis of what the parties (including third . .
FollowedLondon Residuary Body v Lambeth London Borough Council HL 1990
Planning battles had raged over the use of the former GLC County Hall. The question was whether it was desirable and appropriate to retain use of part of the building for London Government offices and centred on the ‘competing needs’ test.
CitedClyde and Co v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1977
Planning permission had been granted for an office block, together with 8 flats as part of the same building. The building was largely erected, with the residential part incomplete. There was an application to change the existing permitted use of . .

Cited by:

CitedBannertown Developments Limited v Secretary of State for Environment Cotswold District Council Kimberley Securities Plc CA 6-Oct-1998
. .
CitedFuller v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 14-Jan-2015
The claimant challenged grant of a planning permission to erect a two story dwelling, saying that a tree would be lost.
Held: The policy does not only provide a condition under which only development will be permitted: it also requires that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.79112

White v Lynch: QBD 7 Jul 2011

The claimant was landlord of the tenant’s restaurant property. He sought an injunction to require the defendant to comply with planning permissions requiring the premises to close at midnight.

Judges:

Edwards-Stuart J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1664 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Land

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.441883

Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex Parte Milne (2): QBD 31 Jul 2000

Developers submitted applications for outline permission for the development of a business park. The applicant sought to quash the grant on the basis that the environmental assessment was insufficiently detailed, and contained reserved matters, and that the development conflicted with the applicable unitary development plan.
Held: The intent of the legislation had been satisfied, and as much information as was available had been provided. Some residual flexibility was inevitable: ‘a legalistic approach to the interpretation of development plan policies is to be avoided’. It was also common for such permissions to conflict in part with the UDP.
Where outline planning consent is being applied for, it is at the outline consent stage that the planning authority must have sufficient details of the proposed development, sufficient details of any impact on the environment, and sufficient details of any mitigation to enable it to comply with its article 4(2) obligation. An authority need not require further details of a matter where it is ‘satisfied that such details , provided they are sufficiently controlled by condition, are not likely to have significant effect.’ Mr Jones submits that such is the case here. There was a well established mitigating technique involving negative pressure which virtually eliminated any environmental problem. A planning authority is entitled to assume that the Environmental Agency will carry out its functions ‘with a reasonable degree of competence.’
‘the development which is described and assessed in the Environmental Statement must be the development which is proposed to be carried out and therefore the development which is a subject of the development consent and not some other development’ and the ‘ . . ..local planning authority will need to be satisfied that the description of the proposed development in the outline planning permission is adequate, given that it will be able to impose conditions in respect of reserved matters so that matters of detail can be dealt with at a later stage’.
and ‘Any major development project will be subject to a number of detailed controls, not all of them included within the planning permission. Emissions to air, discharges into water, disposal of the waste produced by the project, will all be subject to controls under legislation dealing with environmental protection. In assessing the likely significant environmental effects of a project the authors of the environmental statement and the local planning authority are entitled to rely on the operation of those controls with a reasonable degree of competence on the part of the responsible authority: see, for example, the assumptions made in respect of construction impacts, above. The same approach should be adopted to the local planning authority’s power to approve reserved matters. Mistakes may occur in any system of detailed controls, but one is identifying and mitigating the ‘likely significant effects’, not every conceivable effect, however minor or unlikely, of a major project.’
‘It is not at all unusual for development plan policies to pull in different directions. A proposed development may be in accord with development plan policies which, for example, encourage development for employment purposes, and yet be contrary to policies which seek to protect open countryside. In such cases there may be no clear cut answer to the question: ‘is this proposal in accordance with the plan?’ The local planning authority has to make a judgment bearing in mind such factors as the importance of the policies which are complied with or infringed, and the extent of compliance or breach.’

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Gazette 31-Aug-2000, [2001] JPL 470, [2001] Env LR 406, (2001) 81 PandCR 365

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 54A 70

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Se AlsoRegina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Andrew Tew; George Daniel Milne; and Steven Garner Admn 7-May-1999
An outline application for a shopping development, gave no details of the expected floor area, and nor was there an environmental assessment.
Held: The failure to give the floor area was not critical, but even at this stage the ommission of . .
CitedCity of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland and Another; Same v Same (Conjoined Appeals) HL 31-Oct-1997
The Listed buildings registers are to be read consistently; the trading level is a material consideration in listed buildings consent applications. The weight to be given to a material consideration once identified was a matter of judgment for the . .
CitedRegina v North Yorkshire County Council, ex parte Brown and Another HL 12-Feb-1999
When a mineral planning authority set conditions on the continued operation of a quarry which had been operating since pre-1947, that decision was a development consent, and it required to be supported by an environmental impact assessment, since it . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Environment ex parte Webster Admn 8-Mar-1999
A legalistic approach to the interpretation of policies in local and other plans is to be avoided. . .
CitedBerkeley v Secretary of State For The Environment and Others HL 11-May-2000
The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for a new football ground for Fulham Football club, saying that an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been obtained, but was required.
Held: Where a planning application if . .
CitedWorld Wildlife Fund and Others v Autonome Provinz Bozen and Others ECJ 12-Oct-1999
The court considered a project for converting Bolzano airport in Italy from military to civilian use. The national law did not require the project to be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The court asked whether the national law . .
CitedRegina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Ex Parte Trustees of the Council for the Protection of Rural England CA 12-Jun-2000
. .
CitedRegina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Ex Parte Trustees of the Council for the Protection of Rural England QBD 26-Oct-1999
The authority gave permission for a new shopping centre up to 600,000 sq ft as an urban project. The Trustees sought that the permission be set aside since the council had not undertaken an environmental impact assessment, and under the EC Treaty . .

Cited by:

CitedHereford Waste Watchers Ltd v Hereford Council Admn 18-Feb-2005
. .
CitedJones, Regina (on the Application Of) v Mansfield District Council Admn 20-Jan-2003
. .
CitedRegina (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others Admn 19-Dec-2001
. .
CitedBurkett, Regina (on the Application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham Admn 15-May-2003
Outline permission was granted for a large development, reserving certain matters. The applicant challenged the permission saying that the application had not included the information required under the Regulations, and the authority had failed to . .
CitedPPG11 Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Dorset County Council and Another Admn 6-Jun-2003
. .
CitedKent, Regina (on the Application Of) v First Secretary of State and others Admn 3-Dec-2004
. .
CitedJD Wetherspoon Plc, Regina (on the Application Of) v Guildford Borough Council Admn 11-Apr-2006
The company sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to apply its cumulative impact policy to their application for extended licensing hours.
Held: The company’s application amounted to a material variation of the license, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.87639

Wokingham Borough Council v Scott and Others: QBD 20 Feb 2017

Application for injunction to cease alleged breaches of planning control.

Judges:

Karen Walden-Smith HHJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 294 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and County Planning Act 1990 187B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoWokingham Borough Council v Scott and Others CACD 17-Jan-2019
The Registrar referred to the court an application by the prosecution, for leave to appeal under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 against a terminating ruling. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.577508

Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Warwickshire County Council: QBD 27 Jul 2016

Claim for judicial review of the grant of planning permission by the Defendant, Warwickshire County Council to itself for the change of use of land from use as a storage site for road chippings to use as an emergency stopping place for up to 12 caravans.

Judges:

Lewis J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1854 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.567800

Carter 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 within time.
Held: The proceedings had been brought in that form simply in order to circumvent the time limit imposed by Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules and ought therefore to be struck out. It was an abuse of process to seek to decide an issue of public law by means of a private law action such as an application for a declaration.

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC (Admin) 669

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedStancliffe 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Administrative

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.228575

Anderson and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v City of York Council: Admn 13 Jun 2005

Judges:

Elias J

Citations:

[2006] Env LR 11, [2005] EWHC 1531 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFriends of Basildon Golf Course v Basildon District Council and Another Admn 23-Jan-2009
The council owned land on which it ran a golf course. It set out to privatise it and sought interest. An application was made for planning permission. The applicants objected to the planning permission, saying that the Environmental Impact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.228888

Brent London Borough Council v Patel and Another: ChD 30 Nov 2000

An improvement grant made in respect of a house in multiple occupation, became repayable in whole, where the owner of the freehold took up residence in any part of the property. In applying for the grant the owner certified that part of the property would be available for active to someone not a family member. The certificates were confusing, but the words of the section did not allow the possibility of the landlord occupying any part of the house either himself or through a member of his own family.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Dec-2000, Times 30-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Local Government and Housing Act 1989 122, 106(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Planning, Housing

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.78573

McDonagh, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hackney: Admn 15 Feb 2012

Application for judicial review brought by Mrs Anne McDonagh, who challenges the policy of the defendant, the London Borough of Hackney (‘Hackney’) in respect of the allocation of pitches on sites authorised and designated for use by the travelling community.

Judges:

Kenneth Parker J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 373 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Planning, Housing

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452683

IM Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield District Council and Others: Admn 18 Jul 2014

Application by the claimant for judicial review of a decision by the defendant dated 28th January 2014 to endorse the main modifications to the draft Lichfield Local Plan Strategy. The claimant seeks a quashing order of the decision.

Judges:

Patterson J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2440 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.535234

MWH Associates Ltd v Wrexham County Borough Council: UTLC 19 Jul 2011

UTLC COMPENSATION – modification order – review of mineral planning permission under Environment Act 1995 – basis of claim – whether depreciation of the value of land or loss of profits – Habitats Regulations 1994 – proposed use contrary to law – insufficient evidence to establish depreciation of value of land – whether loss directly attributable to modification order – claimant not intending to work the land – derogation licence to translocate great crested newts would not have been granted in absence of modification order – no compensation payable

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 269 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environment Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromMWH Associates Ltd v Wrexham County Borough Council CA 28-Nov-2012
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445671

Renfree v Mageean: CA 30 Jun 2011

Appeal against a quashing of a decision of the planning Inspector appointed by the the Secretary of State, allowing the appellant’s appeal against the refusal of the third respondent to grant planning permission for the erection of a 1.3 megawatt wind turbine generator with a hub height of up to 50 metres and a blade tip height of up to 80 metres on land at Pensilva, Liskeard (‘the site’).

Judges:

Mummery, Rimer, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 863, [2012] Env LR 3

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedChampion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Utilities

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442737

Telford Trustee No.1 Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Telford and Wrekin Council: CA 27 Jul 2011

The claimants, owners of land in the town centre, part of which was occupied by a supermarket, objected to the grant of planning permission by the council to the supermarket company for another superstore.

Judges:

Ward, Richards, Hughes LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 896

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.442236

Hulme v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: CA 26 May 2011

Permission had been granted for a windfarm, subject to a complex group of conditions, designed to mitigate noise, including (as it was described) ‘blade swish’. Condition 20 required the operator, in the event of a complaint from a local resident, to employ a consultant to assess whether the noise emissions at that dwelling exceeded the expected levels, by reference to levels specified in the condition.
Held: The condition was obscurely drafted, and failed to indicate clearly what was to happen next, but having regard to its obvious purpose and to the scheme of the conditions as a whole, Elias LJ interpreted it as imposing an obligation, running for the duration of the permission, to comply with the specified levels, subject to enforcement by the planning authority in the normal way.

Judges:

Mummery, Elias, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 638

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTelford and Wrekin Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 29-Jan-2013
Permission had been granted for use of a building as a garden centre subject to a condition in these terms: ‘prior to the garden centre hereby approved opening, details of the proposed types of products to be sold should be submitted to and agreed . .
CitedTrump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 16-Dec-2015
The appellant challenged the grant of permission to the erection of wind turbines within sight of its golf course.
Held: The appeal failed. The challenge under section 36 was supported neither by the language or structure of the 1989 Act, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440182

Isle of Anglesey County Council and Another v Welsh Ministers and others: QBD 6 May 2008

Challenge to the grant of planning permission to create a marina in an area designated as a mussel fishery.

Judges:

Davis J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 921 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Menai Strait Oyster and Mussel Fishery Order 1962

Jurisdiction:

Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromIsle of Anglesey County Council and Another v The Welsh Ministries and others CA 20-Feb-2009
The claimants, the Commissioners and the County Council, sought declarations to establish their right to build a marina on parts of the foreshore currently used for commercial mussel fishing. Section 40 of the 1868 Act authorised ministers to make . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Planning

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.267543

Uprichard v Fife Council: SIC 21 Nov 2005

Request for information relating to a planning application made to Fife Council – Failure of Fife Council to respond to an information request and subsequent request for review within the statutory timescales set out in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 049 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Cited by:

See AlsoUprichard v Fife Council SIC 15-Aug-2006
Correspondence submitted in consultation on proposed upgrade of Lade Braes to multi-user path status – Correspondence submitted in consultation on proposed upgrade of Lade Braes to multi-user path status – personal information section 38(1)(b) of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Information, Planning

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434784

Bateman and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v South Cambridgeshire District Council: Admn 26 Mar 2010

Renewed application for permission to challenge the grant of planning permission for an extension to Camgrain Storage Limited’s grain storage facility at land adjacent to Wilbraham Chalk Pit, West Wratting, Cambridgeshire, near the claimant’s home.

Judges:

Supperstone QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 797 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431929

Kerrier District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment: QBD 1981

A building had been constructed on a site, but failed to comply with the permission granted because the basement did not have planning approval.

Citations:

(1981) 41 P and CR 284

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

OverruledHandoll and Suddick v Warner Goodman and Streat (a firm) and Others CA 9-Dec-1994
The purchasers of land on which a bungalow had been erected wanted to discover, by way of a preliminary issue in an action against the vendor, whether a condition attached to planning permission would enforceable against them. A planning permission . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.552021

Trott v Broadland District Council: CA 17 Mar 2011

The appellant appealed against an injunction preventing him interfering in the recreational enjoyment of land. Planning permission had been granted to his company allowing a development on condition that land adjacent to the buildings should be left open. He was said to have enclosed part of it as a garden.

Judges:

Sullivan LJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 301

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Land

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430649

Milebush Properties Ltd v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 17 Mar 2011

The court considered the availability, in private law proceedings between non-contracting parties, of a declaration on the meaning and effect of a planning obligation in a deed made pursuant to provisions in the planning legislation.

Judges:

Mummery, Moore-Bick, Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 270

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 106

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Planning

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430646