PS v Royal Borough of Greenwich and Others: Admn 3 Aug 2016

This claim seeks to quash a planning permission granted by the defendant to the interested parties. The defendant had resolved to grant permission at a meeting of its planning board. There was then a referral to the Mayor of London whose delegated officer decided neither to direct refusal nor to take over the application for his own consideration. He stated that it represented EIA development and he had taken into account the environmental information in reaching his decision. There were further s.106 considerations before permission was finally granted.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1967 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.567936

St Paul’s Development Ltd v Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council and another: QBD 31 May 2000

The applicant sought residential use of one plot of land. The authority designated it for employment use, and took land out of the Green belt for housing. After a Unitary Development Plan enquiry, the applicant appealed again, and the inspector made certain findings and recommendations. The Authority went ahead with the UDP.
Held: The Authority had erred in publishing the plan without taking on board the inspectors new findings, and should have considered holding a new enquiry.

Citations:

Times 31-May-2000

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 78, 287

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89476

Regina v St Edmundsbury Borough Council, ex parte Davidson: QBD 7 Jul 1999

Where two sites had been available for a redevelopment, one site was rejected because an existing lease made it unworkable, and the plan was piece meal, and the other site was taken forward, the applicant for permission could ask the council to reconsider the first site once the lease was surrendered, and the authority was obliged to retrace its steps sequentially through PPG 6 before a permission could be granted.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jul-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 610

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

PPG 6

Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88681

O’Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another: CA 17 Apr 2001

A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The land was held under provisions in the 1938 Act making the sale of any part conditional on the consent of the respondent. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector refused the sale.
Held: The applicant successfully appealed. Having examined in detail the operation of the two inconsistent statutes the majority of the Court of Appeal held that there had been an implied repeal. On the basis that the requirements of the Right to Buy scheme were inconsistent with an impliedly repealed the earlier Act. The later provisions were so inconsistent with an repugnant to the earlier Act that the two could not stand together.
Buxton LJ, dissenting said: ‘The court will not lightly find a case of implied repeal, and the test for it is a high one.’
Laws LJ with whom Thorpe LJ agreed said that the contradiction between the two pieces of legislation must be ‘inescapable’ and that the construction of the later statute must be shown to be the only rational interpretation that is available.

Judges:

Thorpe, Buxton, Laws LJJ

Citations:

Times 17-Apr-2001, Gazette 20-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 499, [2001] NPC 71, [2002] HLR 30, [2001] 16 EGCS 144

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 118, Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte O’Byrne QBD 8-Jun-2000
A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector held that the green belt policy itself would not be affected, but a sale would . .
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte O’Byrne Admn 20-Aug-1999
It could be proper, when ordering for a third party to be joined in an action for judicial review, to order that the original party should not be responsible for the new party’s costs in any event. Such a power could be derived from the overriding . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions ex parte O’Byrne HL 14-Nov-2002
The applicant sought to exercise her right to buy a property she had occupied of her local authority. It was in the green belt, and the authority declined to sell it until they had obtained authorisation for the sale. The authority appealed an order . .
CitedSnelling and Another v Burstow Parish Council ChD 24-Jan-2013
The parties disputed the application and interpretation of ancient statues relating to allotments. The land had been appropriated to allotments under the 1945 Act. The Council had argued that it had a power of sale under the 1908 Act subject to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Planning, Local Government, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85990

Regina v Tandridge District Council, ex parte Al-Fayed: QBD 27 Jan 1999

A local authority should give great weight to authoritative scientific advice given by statutory bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive and National Radiological Protection Board as to the safety of proposed developments.

Citations:

Times 28-Jan-1999, Gazette 03-Mar-1999, Gazette 27-Jan-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 31

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Appealed toRegina v Tandbridge District Council and Another, Ex Parte Al-Fayed CA 1-Feb-2000
A planning authority disallowed an objection to the erection of a mobile telephone transmitter. Although there had been an omission in the procedure followed by the council, it was clear that it had in fact considered the evidence put forward by the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Tandbridge District Council and Another, Ex Parte Al-Fayed CA 1-Feb-2000
A planning authority disallowed an objection to the erection of a mobile telephone transmitter. Although there had been an omission in the procedure followed by the council, it was clear that it had in fact considered the evidence put forward by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85586

North Devon District Council v Secretary of State for Environment, D Rottenbury B E Rottenbury: QBD 12 May 1998

A mandatory agricultural occupancy condition was not subject to a continuous breach when cottages were occupied over summer by visitors rather than by agricultural workers as required by the permission.

Citations:

Times 12-May-1998, Gazette 28-May-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 458

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Agriculture, Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84341

Kent County Council v Curtis: QBD 24 Jun 1998

Advertisements placed by a roadway outside a shop were properly found by magistrates not to cause an obstruction, nor to be unsafe or any danger. Magistrates were wrong to seek to alter their decision when stating their case for the divisional court.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Jun-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 639

Links:

Bailii

Planning, Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82741

E v Camden London Borough Council, Ex Parte Williams: QBD 6 Jun 2000

Whether a delay in appealing against a planning decision became so protracted as to bar the challenge was a question of fact according to the circumstances of each case. The six weeks period mentioned in R v Ceredigion County Council ex p McKeown cannot be universally applied. The person may not learn of the permission for some time.

Citations:

Times 06-Jun-2000

Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80200

Croyden London Borough Council v Gladden and Others: CA 23 Feb 1994

The court could properly grant an interlocutory injunction ordering the removal of a plane (a replica Spitfire) from a roof in breach of planning controls under the Act.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1994, Ind Summary 28-Feb-1994, Gazette 27-Apr-1994, [1994] 1 PLR 30

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 55(2)(d) 90 187(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMid-Sussex District Council v William Charles Boyle QBD 20-Jul-2001
The authority sought an injunction to restrain a breach of planning control by the defendant. Earlier temporary permissions for single caravans had expired, and enforcement notices issued. The defendant had failed to remove multiple vehicles.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79694

Burgemeester En Wethouders Van Haarlemmerlied En Spaarnwoude v Gedeputerde Staten Van Noord-Holland: ECJ 9 Sep 1998

Where a development which might have significant environmental impact was proposed it was necessary to ensure that an environmental impact assessment had been carried out. It was not open to member states to exempt some types of development.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Sep-1998, C-81/96, Wcj/Cfi Bulletin 16/98, 28

Statutes:

Council Directive 90/313/EEC Freedom of Access to information on the environment.

Environment, European, Planning

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78743

British Railways Board v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another: HL 29 Oct 1993

Permission had been given for residential development of land provided that access was provided. The access specified was to be over land owned by the council. It was known that the Council would not allow such access. The land owner sought an order that the permission should stand but without the condition. The Secretary had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the proposed Grampian condition in respect of access did not have a reasonable prospect of being fulfilled within the period for commencing development under the permission.
Held: The fact alone that a planning permission was subject to a condition which was unlikely to be satisfied did not mean that the permission was ineffective. The Secretary of State may however maintain as a matter of policy that there should be at least reasonable prospects of the action in question being performed within the time limit imposed by the permission. Referring to section 29(3) ‘The owner of the land to which the application related might object to the grant of planning permission for reasons which might or not be sound on planning grounds. If his reasons were sound on planning grounds no doubt the application would be refused. But if they were unsound, the mere fact that the owner objected and was unwilling that the development should go ahead could not in itself necessarily lead to a refusal. The function of the planning authority was to decide whether or not the proposed development was desirable in the public interest. The answer to that question was not to be affected by the consideration that the owner of the land was determined not to allow the development so that permission for it, if granted, would not have reasonable prospects of being implemented. That did not mean that the planning authority, if it decided that the proposed development was in the public interest, was absolutely disentitled from taking into account the improbability of permission for it, if granted, being implemented. For example, if there were a competition between two alternative sites for a desirable development, difficulties of bringing about implementation on one site which were not present in relation to the other might very properly lead to the refusal of planning permission for the site affected by the difficulties and the grant of it for the other. But there was no absolute rule that the existence of difficulties, even if apparently insuperable, had to necessarily lead to refusal of planning permission for a desirable development. A would-be developer might be faced with difficulties of many different kinds, in the way of site assembly or securing the discharge of restricted covenants. If he considered that it was in his interests to secure planning permission notwithstanding the existence of such difficulties, it was not for the planning authority to refuse it simply on their view of how serious the difficulties were.
In the present case British Rail had applied for a planning permission which would cover their own land and also land belonging to Hounslow. Hounslow’s land was to be the site of the access road which they sought. The proposed condition related simply to the stage which construction of the access road had to have reached before the construction of the houses started and before the houses were occupied. The condition, if imposed, would not derogate from the planning permission if granted. So the position is British Rail had applied for planning permission affecting land not in their ownership, a common state of affairs specifically contemplated by the Act. The proposed condition did not relate to land outside the ambit of the permission applied for. Even if it had done, the relevant considerations would be the same as those to be applied where an application for planning permission relates to land not in ownership of the applicant. If the condition was of a negative character and appropriate in the light of sound planning principles, the fact that it appeared to have no reasonable prospects of being implemented did not mean that the grant of planning permission subject to it would be irrational in the Wednesbury sense so that it would be unlawful to grant it. If it was irrational to grant planning permission subject to a condition which had no reasonable prospects of being implemented then it had to be no less irrational to refuse planning permission on the ground that a desirable condition had no reasonable prospects of implementation and therefore could not be imposed. In truth, neither course was irrational. What was appropriate depended on the circumstances and was to be determined in the exercise of the discretion of the planning authority. But the mere fact that a desirable condition appeared to have no reasonable prospects of fulfilment did not mean that planning permission must necessarily be refused. Something more is required before that could be the correct result.’

Judges:

Lord Keith

Citations:

Times 29-Oct-1993, [1994] JPL 32

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1971 29(3)

Citing:

CitedNewbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1981
The grant of a temporary planning permission did not operate to cancel an existing established use. A planning condition requiring removal of hangars was invalid because it did not fairly or reasonably relate to the permitted development. The grant . .
CitedJones v Secretary of State for Wales and Ogwr District Council CA 1990
The court adopted as a principle that a Grampian condition could only be imposed if there was a reasonable prospect of compliance within the time limit imposed on the permission. . .
CitedGrampian Regional Council v City of Aberdeen District Council 1984
The extinguishment of a private right is not a proper matter for a condition attached to a planning permission, even though a negative condition preventing development until a highway has been stopped up is unobjectionable. . .
CitedGrampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland HL 1983
The House endorsed the practice of imposing negative conditions in planning consents, upholding the validity of a condition that the development of the site could not commence until the road on the western boundary of the site had been closed by a . .

Cited by:

CitedDouglas John Merritt v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Mendip District Council Admn 5-Aug-1999
The applicant appealed refusal of planning permission for residential development of a small plot of land. The said that the inspector had wrongly rejected the application of a Grampian condition on the basis that it would not be fulfilled and also . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78631

Bromley London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Others: QBD 19 Jul 2001

The applicants sought permission to build a national centre for travelling showmen within the green belt. They argued that there was a very special need for such a facility. And that a search had revealed no suitable alternative location. The inspector agreed. He found the development would harm the green belt, but that the very special circumstances outweighed that harm. The Secretary of State confirmed the decision. The authority appealed, but the appeal was unsuccessful. Though the Secretary of State had not explicitly dealt with doubts expressed by the inspector as to the search methodology used, his decision did not need to refer to each part of the inspector’s decision.

Citations:

Gazette 19-Jul-2001

Planning

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78670

Bridle v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions: QBD 16 Nov 2000

The landowner had applied for and had been refused change of use from an agricultural building to residential land. He subsequently applied for similar permission in respect of a goat shed. The council failed to determine his application, and the inspector refused it. He alleged a failure to take proper account of the relevant development plan, and that ongoing unauthorised residential use of the property had gone beyond the point at which enforcement could be effected. It was held that the development plan remained in draft only, and enforcement proceedings had begun within the time required and remained extant.

Citations:

Gazette 16-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171B

Citing:

See AlsoBridle v Secretary of State for Environment and Chelmsford District Council Admn 3-Mar-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78578

Bracken v East Hertfordshire District Council: QBD 11 May 2000

An enforcement notice was served on the land owner alleging change of use from agricultural to the storage of building materials and waste and agriculture. The plan incorrectly included the applicant’s house. The applicant challenged the enforcement notice, but failed before the magistrates and on a case stated. The error did not mean that the enforcement notice ceased to be such, and could have been dealt with by other procedures.

Citations:

Gazette 11-May-2000

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 179(2)

Agriculture, Planning

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78536

Belmont Riding Centre Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 26 Oct 2000

The land owner applied for permission to upgrade an indoor riding centre. The Secretary of State upheld the inspector’s decision. The claimant’s appeal was dismissed. The inspector had become seriously ill during the inquiry, and had delayed its completion, but he had considered properly the change of emphasis between outdoor and indoor activity, the intensification of use, and the particular character of the claimant’s proposals. The Inspector’s failure to repeat every item of evidence did not suggest that he had forgotten any of it, and he had properly considered and rejected the applicant’s arguments.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Oct-2000

Planning

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78326

Pilkington v Secretary of State for the Environment: QBD 1973

A planning permission was granted to build a bungalow on part of the land, site ‘B’, subject to a condition it should be the only house to be built on the land. He built the bungalow. Later the owner discovered the existence of an earlier permission to build a bungalow and garage on another part of the same land, site ‘A’. That permission contemplated the use of the rest of the land as a smallholding. He began to build the second bungalow, when he was served with an enforcement notice alleging a breach of planning control.
Held: The two permissions could not stand in respect of the same land, once the development sanctioned by the second permission had been carried out. The effect of building on site ‘B’ was to make the development authorised in the earlier permission incapable of implementation. The bungalow built on site ‘B’ had destroyed the smallholding: and the erection of two bungalows on the site had never been sanctioned.
Lord Widgery said: ‘For this purpose I think one looks to see what is the development authorised in the permission which has to be implemented. One looks first to see that full scope of that which has been done or can be done pursuant to the permission which has been implemented. One then looks at the development which was permitted in the second permission, now sought to be implemented, and one asks oneself whether it is possible to carry out the development proposed in that second permission, having regard to that which was done or authorised to be done under the permission which has been implemented.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery

Citations:

[1973] 1 WLR 1527, (1973) 25 P and CR 508

Cited by:

ApprovedHoveringham Gravels v Chiltern District Council CA 1977
. .
CitedRobert Hitchins Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Worcesteshire County Council and Others Admn 18-Nov-2014
A planning permission was granted with an agreement under section 106. A second permission was later granted. The court was now asked whether the section 106 agreement applied also to the second permission.
Held: As a matter of law, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.538890

Horsham District Council v The Secretary of State for the Environment: CA 1991

The council had refused planning permission for a petrol station and restaurant nearby an area of outstanding natural beauty, designated as a strategic gap in the county structure plan. The inspector had allowed the appeal, finding that the development would not detract from the purposes of policy ENV 6, which required the maintenance of such gaps. The Council said he had not given reasons for this finding.
Held: The Council’s appeal succeeded. An inspector should have regard to the development plan and other material considerations, giving reasons which demonstrated his understanding of the plan. The policy required compelling reasons for any development within the strategic gap. The inspector had ignored that requirement.

Judges:

Nolan LJ

Citations:

(1991) 63 P and CR 219, [1992] 1 PLR 81

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council SC 21-Mar-2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.452984

Anscomb v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions: QBD 22 Feb 2001

The claimant sought to object to an inspector’s decision to allow erection of a telecommunications mast. The failure of the inspector to consider potential health risks was not open to criticism because the claimant’s papers had made no reference to such risks. A technical report which might have been considered had not been submitted, and the claimant’s objection on human rights grounds failed inter alia on the grounds that the decision had been issued before the Act came into effect.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 6(1) 7(1)(b) 22(4), Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77804

Allied London Property Investment Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another: QBD 8 Mar 1996

The applicant appealed the dismissal by the respondent of their application to the council for an extension of the time allowed for approval of reserved matters.
Held: The appeal was granted. The reason for the delay had been a lack of interest in the proposed development, but when an application was made under the section, the inspector should only have considered the question of the conditions to which the permission was subject, and as at the time he considered the issue. He should not have considered new planning policies which had come into effect since the outline permission was granted. The authority had to consider the acceptability of the existing and proposed conditions, and could not revisit the question of whether the development was itself acceptable in principle. The power to vary planning consent conditions was not to be used to challenge the grant itself.

Judges:

Lockhart-Mummery QC

Citations:

Times 28-Mar-1996, (1996) 72 PandCR 327

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 73(2)

Planning

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77761

Alnwick District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 8 Sep 1999

Where a grant of permission had been reversed, leaving the planning authority liable to pay substantial compensation, such compensation could not be taken account of when reversing the permission. Financial consequences were only a material consideration when they related to the use and development of the land itself. In this case the compensation was not a material consideration.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Sep-1999

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 70(2)

Planning

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77765

London Borough of Sutton v Bolton and Another: ChD 3 Feb 1993

Land had been owned by the authority and used as a children’s home. After a boundary change taking the land outside its area, it sought to sell the land for development. The neighbours, claiming the benefit of a restrictive covenant allowing only one house on the land, objected. Using the 1972 Act, the authority purported to override the covenant by appropriating the property to planning purposes. They now sought validation of that appropriation.
Held: The appopriation was unsuccessful. The section allowed no greater power than the power to acquire land for any particular purpose, and it could not have been acquired for that purpose, since the land was no longer within its district. The authority had to show the appropriation was for a purpose set out in the section, which did not include the satisfaction of the planning purposes of a different authority.

Judges:

Paul Baker QC J

Citations:

[1993] 68 P and CR 166, [1993] 91 LGR 566, [1993] 2 EGLR 181, [1993] 33 EG 91

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 122, Town and Country Planning Act 1971 127, Town and Country Planning Act 1990 237 246

Planning, Land

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.261592

Grampian Regional Council v City of Aberdeen District Council: 1984

The extinguishment of a private right is not a proper matter for a condition attached to a planning permission, even though a negative condition preventing development until a highway has been stopped up is unobjectionable.

Citations:

(1984) 47 PandCR 633, [1984] JPL 371

Cited by:

CitedBritish Railways Board v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another HL 29-Oct-1993
Permission had been given for residential development of land provided that access was provided. The access specified was to be over land owned by the council. It was known that the Council would not allow such access. The land owner sought an order . .
CitedLondon Borough of Bexley v Maison Maurice Ltd ChD 15-Dec-2006
The council had taken land by compulsory purchase in order to construct a dual carriageway. It then claimed that it had left undedicated a strip .5 metre wide as a ransom strip to prevent the defendant restoring access to the road.
Held: The . .
CitedNirah Holdings Ltd v British Agricultural Services Ltd and Another ComC 11-Sep-2009
The parties entered into an option agreement giving the claimant a right to purchase the defendant’s land. The consideration would be affected by the costs of complying with a section 106 agreement to construct local ancillary services. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Scotland

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.225279

Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment: CA 1982

The developer originally sought permission for 450 homes. That was refused. Before the appeal, it proposed an alternative with 250 homes to be adopted only if the size of the development were considered to be the critical factor. The inspector decided for the smaller scale application. The developer appealed, but the Secretary of State dismissed the appeal saying in addition that it was improper to allow the smaller scale development where the development was not severable.
Held: It had been permissible for the Inspector to grant a lesser permission than had been applied for, by the use of conditions and provided the effect was not to alter the substance of the application, which was a matter on which the Secretary of State had to exercise his judgment. The court went on to explain how the judgment should be reached: ‘The main but not the only criterion on which that judgment should be exercised is whether the development is so changed that to grant it would be to deprive those who should have been consulted on the changed development of the opportunity of such consultation.’ Where a proposed deveeopment had already been through full consultation, and opposition had been total, it was not necessary to consult again on the smaller proposal.
The court considered the additional difficulties in commons application cases of allowing amendments on apppeal because of the need to allow for the public interest.

Judges:

Forbes J

Citations:

(1982) 43 PandCR 233

Statutes:

Commons Registration Act 1965, Town amnd Country Planning ACt 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (Alfred McAlpine Homes Ltd) v Staffordshire County Council 17-Jan-2002
The court refused to set aside the council’s decision to register as a common a lesser area then applied for. ‘ Does the council have power to register a smaller area than applied for? It is perfectly true that there is no express power in either . .
CitedOxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council, Catherine Mary Robinson ChD 22-Jan-2004
Land had been registered in part as a common. The council appealed.
Held: The rights pre-existing the Act had not been lost. The presumption against retrospectively disapplying vested rights applied, and the application had properly been made. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Planning

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.192183

Mansi v Elstree Rural District Council: QBD 1964

The local planning authority served an enforcement notice reciting that the appellant had changed the use of a glasshouse on a nursery garden from use for agricultural purposes to the use for the sale of goods and requiring the appellant to discontinue the latter use. No reference was made in the notice to the former subsidiary use for the retail sale of nursery produce and other articles nor was there any provision for its continuance. The court held that the Minister ought to have amended the notice under the powers given to him so as to make it perfectly clear that the notice did not prevent the appellant from using the premises for the sale of goods by retail, provided that such sale was on the scale and in the manner to which he was entitled in 1959, as the Minister himself had found. True that use was a subsidiary one, but nevertheless it should be protected and, in my judgment, this appeal should be allowed to the extent that the decision in question should be sent back to the Minister with a direction that he ought to amend the notice so as to safeguard the appellant’s established right as found by the Minister to carry on retail trade in the manner and to the extent to which the Minister had found it was carried on in 1959.

Judges:

Widgery J

Citations:

(1964) 16 P and CR 158

Cited by:

CitedBuckinghamshire County Council v North West Estates plc and others ChD 31-May-2002
The planning authority sought injunctions for enforcement notices. The landowner argued that human rights law required the court when looking at such a request to look at the entire planning history.
Held: Although the court could look to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Agriculture

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183688

McInerney v Portland Port Limited: QBD 2001

In order to identify whether land comprises of garden, it is necessary not only to look at its appearance and its characteristics, but also to its use.

Judges:

Latham LJ

Citations:

[2001] 1 PLR 104

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 3-Jul-2008
The court gave guidance on the meaning of ‘garden’ in planning law. . .
CitedCrosswait v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Goernment Admn 12-Aug-2009
The claimant appealed against an enforcement notice. He had built a dwelling on land with only agricultural use allowed and without permission. He claimed that the land had been incorporated into a garden.
Held: An appeal would be hopeless. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.373267

Regina v Swansea City Council, ex parte Elitestone Ltd: QBD 1993

On 1 May a sub-committee held a meeting at which land was declared to be a conservation area. Under the Act, the agenda had been open for inspection for three clear days. They were available from April 26, and there was no suggestion that they had not been available for any part of that working day.
Held: The application was dismissed. The section actually required the agenda and report to be open for inspection for at least three days before the meeting. Parliament had intended that three full days before the meeting, members of the public should have opportunity to inspect them. They had been available for the whole of April 6, 27 and 30, and the meeting on 1 May went ahead properly.

Judges:

MacPherson J

Citations:

Ind Summary 31-May-1993, Times 13-May-1993, [1993] 90 LGR 604, (1993) 66 P and CR 422

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 1(1) 100B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal FromRegina v Swansea City Council, ex parte Elitestone Ltd CA 5-May-1993
The company appellant, E, wished to develop its land. The Council had declared it to be a conservation area. E said that they had not given the necessary notice of the meeting of the sub-committee at which the initial decision had been made. E . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Planning

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.88139

Regina v Thurrock Borough Council, ex Parte Blue Circle Industries Plc: CA 11 Oct 1994

A Local Authority may not demand money for the variation of a covenant in lease. Such a variation was not a disposal of land. There was no out and out cessation of any interest.

Citations:

Times 31-Oct-1994, Independent 11-Oct-1994

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 233

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.88191

Richmond London Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another: QBD 6 Apr 2000

The landowner sought permission to change a property from being used as eight single room flats into one residence. The authority contended that this was a change of use, but the inspector decided against them.
Held: The inspector had erred. The desirability of retaining several small housing units was a valid consideration, and should not have been excluded by him. The rules regarding alteration within the same use class only applied once it had been established what the use class was.

Citations:

Gazette 06-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.88778

Eastbourne Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions, and Batey and Another: QBD 19 Oct 2000

The landowners were granted permission to change the use of their guesthouse to private use. The change was challenged on the basis that the inspector had misapplied the policy regarding ‘financial viability of a continuing tourist operation,’ and that he had failed to make proper allowance for non-financial reasons requiring its continued use for tourist purposes. It was held that the phrase ‘financial viability’ could be read in the way the inspector had, but he had indeed dealt with the non-financial aspects in only one line of his report, which could not be sufficient. He did not indicate whether he had accepted that some guesthouses operated on low rates of return.

Citations:

Gazette 19-Oct-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.80225

Bolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others: HL 25 May 1995

There had been an application in 1986 for planning permission for a shopping centre in Trafford. There were two public enquiries, followed, as public policy changed by further representations. The plaintiff complained that the eventual decision letter was defective in failing to deal with issues of urban regeneration, and with reservation of areas for industrial use.
Held: The Secretary of State had to state his reasons ‘in sufficient detail to enable the reader to know what conclusion he had reached on the principal important controversial issues. To require him to refer to every material consideration, however insignificant, and to deal with every argument, however peripheral would be to impose and unjustifiable burden.’ In this case, though the decision letter was open to criticism, it had achieved the necessary standard and stood.
Lord Lloyd said: ‘In all questions to do with costs, the fundamental rule is that there are no rules. Costs are always in the discretion of the court, and a practice, however widespread and longstanding, must never be allowed to harden into a rule.’

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chievley, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Steyn

Citations:

Times 25-May-1995, Ind Summary 10-Jul-1995, (1995) 71 P and CR 309, (1995) 1 WLR 1176

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoBolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others No 2 HL 17-Jul-1995
The applicants had been successful in their appeal against a refusal of planning permission. The Secretary of State had awarded himself and the applicants their costs against the Council. The Council asked the House to give guidance on the . .
Appeal fromBolton Metropolitan Borough Council and Others v Secretary of State for Environment and Others CA 4-Aug-1994
A decision maker can take a preliminary view of a matter provided that he continues to keep an open mind. . .
CitedHope v Secretary of State for the Environment 1975
. .

Cited by:

See alsoBolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others No 2 HL 17-Jul-1995
The applicants had been successful in their appeal against a refusal of planning permission. The Secretary of State had awarded himself and the applicants their costs against the Council. The Council asked the House to give guidance on the . .
CitedSouth Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .
CitedHurst, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v London Northern District Coroner HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant’s son had been stabbed to death. She challenged the refusal of the coroner to continue with the inquest with a view to examining the responsibility of any of the police in having failed to protect him.
Held: The question amounted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Costs, Administrative

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.78475

Good and Another v Epping Forest District Council: CA 11 Nov 1993

The Court was asked whether a planning authority could validly achieve by agreement any purpose which it could not validly achieve by planning condition or whether the test for validity was the same in each case.
Held: A council may agree to a restriction on use outside the scope of the planning acts. An agreement under section 52 might be valid notwithstanding that it did not satisfy the second of the Newbury tests.
The powers of a planning authority to bring about a planning obligation were not controlled by the nature and extent of its statutory powers to grant planning permission subject to conditions. A planning obligation did not have to relate to a permitted development.
Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘For my part I accept the submission of Mr Gray that, upon the true construction of s. 52 of the Town and County Planning Act 1971, the powers of a planning authority under that section are not controlled by the nature or extent of its powers under s. 29 of the Act of 1971; and I reject the submission advanced for the plaintiffs that those powers are so controlled. The extent of the s. 52 powers is to be determined by reference to the words there used having regard to the context. In particular they give power to a planning authority to enter into an agreement with the owner of the land ‘for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of land.’ If such an agreement is required by a planning authority, and the requirement is made for such a purpose, with due regard to relevant considerations, and is not unreasonable (see the first and third requirements stated in Newbury District Council -v- Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578 at 618), such requirement is not ultra vires merely because the purpose could not be validly achieved by the imposition of a condition under s. 29 of the Act of 1971. The two statutory powers are distinct and the exercise of either of these distinct powers has separate consequences and is subject to different procedures.
If such an agreement is required, and the land owner agrees to enter into it, the validity of the agreement depends upon the same primary test, namely whether it was made ‘for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land’.’

Judges:

Ralph Gibson LJ

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1993, Gazette 26-Jan-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 376

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1971 52

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 11-May-1995
Three companies had applied for permission to build retail food superstores in Witney. The Inspector had recommended Tesco’s proposal, but the respondent rejected it. Tesco’s had offered to provide by way of a section 106 agreement full funding for . .
CitedAberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority v Elsick Development Company Limited SC 25-Oct-2017
The court was asked whether, anticipating substantial growth, a local authority had power to attach to permissions for development conditions intended to recover sums for pooled fund for infrastructure development.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.80905

Trustees of the Walton-on-Thames Charities v Walton and Weybridge Urban District Council: CA 1970

There is no room for an implied condition in a planning permission. Widgery LJ said: ‘I have never heard of an implied condition in a planning permission and I believe no such creature exists. Planning permission enures for the benefit of the land. It is not simply a matter of contract between the parties. There is no place, in my judgment, within the law relating to planning permission for an implied condition. Conditions should be express, they should be clear, they should be in the document containing the permission.’

Judges:

Salmon LJ, Widgery LJ

Citations:

(1970) 21 P and CR 411

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Too AbsoluteTrump 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: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.598715

Crisp from the Fens Ltd v Rutland County Council: CA 1950

A permission was granted for the change of use of a building to use for making potato crisps subject to a condition confining its use to that of ‘the manufacture of potato crisps or any use within class III of [the Use Classes Order]’, in order ‘to ensure that the building shall not be used for general industrial purposes’ which would be detrimental to the amenity of the locality. The relevant Use Classes Order distinguished between use as a light industrial building (class III) and as a general industrial building (class IV); the former being defined by reference to whether the processes could be carried on in any residential area without detriment to its amenity by reason of noise, smell, fumes or smoke.
Held: despite the unqualified reference in the condition to use for manufacture of potato crisps, the word ‘other’ should be read into the second part of the condition (‘or any other use . .’), with the effect that class III constraints should be read as applying to both parts of the condition.
Bucknill LJ said that the court should ‘have regard to the common sense of the transaction, and to the real intention and meaning of the parties rather than criticise minutely the precise words used’
Denning LJ added: ‘It is a case where strict adherence to the letter would involve an error of substance’

Judges:

Bucknill LJ, Denning LJ

Citations:

(1950) 1 P and CR 48

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1947

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.598717

Regina (Vale of White Horse District Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1847

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRencher-Paine v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 2-Mar-2011
The applicant challenged refusal of permission for his proposed one bedroom ‘earthship dwelling’. He ran an ostrich farm on the land, and wished to occupy it instead of the caravan presently occupies with temporary permission.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.430279

Regina 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 they had the right to make such a request. It was held that an individual could not seek to enforce a directive once it had been properly enshrined in a member state’s law. ‘ . . I accept that in exercising discretion with regard to costs . . I should seek to give effect to the overriding objective and should have particular regard to the need, so far as practicable, to ensure that the parties are on an equal footing and that the case is dealt with in a way which is proportionate to the financial position of each party. Those aspects of the overriding objective seem to me to be embedded in any event in the principles laid down in ex p CPAG.’

Judges:

Richards J

Citations:

Gazette 13-Jan-2000, CAT 26 October 1999

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (1988 No 1199)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, The Secretary of State for Defence (2) Admn 5-Dec-2002
The claimants intended to seek a judicial review requesting an interpretation of a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. They sought first, an order pre-emptively to limit their liability for costs.
Held: To make such a protective . .
CitedCorner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Planning, European

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85293

O’Connor v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 9 Nov 2000

The authority issued an enforcement notice alleging a breach of planning control through a change of use form agriculture to mixed agriculture and storage of non-agricultural materials. The land owner brought unchallenged evidence that use had continued for more than ten years, and the notice was incorrectly issued. The inspector found the witnesses’ evidence unreliable. The appeal succeeded. If the inspector wished to reject unchallenged evidence he must give very clear reasons for doing so.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Nov-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84423

Hearne v National Assembly for Wales and Another: CA 10 Nov 1999

When looking at whether a person was a gypsy so as to qualify for additional consideration, the test was to be applied at the time when the decision was made and not when the application was made. It was acknowledged that an applicant could change status from time to time, and that this might lead to some logical inconsistency, but the statute was clear and no supporting guidance suggested otherwise.

Citations:

Times 10-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromHearne v Secretary of State for Wales and Carmarthenshire County Council Admn 25-May-1999
. .

Cited by:

CitedWrexham County Borough v The National Assembly of Wales, Michael Berry, Florence Berry CA 19-Jun-2003
A traditional gypsy family had settled because of ill health, and sought to establish a caravan site. The authority claimed they were no longer to be treated as Gypsy and having the entitlement under the Act.
Held: The Act defined ‘Gypsies’ as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Planning

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81295

Working Title Films Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another: Admn 22 Jul 2016

Challenge by a neighbouring occupier (WTF) to a grant of planning permission by the Defendant WCC to the Interested Party MSR for ‘the erection of a building including excavation works to provide three basement storeys and six above ground storeys for mixed use purposes including up to 79 residential units, retail shops, restaurants, multi-purpose community hall, community space, cycle and car parking, servicing, landscaping, plant and other works’

Judges:

Gilbart J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1855 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWright, Regina (on The Application of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Another SC 20-Nov-2019
W challenged the grant of planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to allow erection of a wind turbine, saying that the authority had taken into account a promise by the land owner to run the scheme as a community development . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.567512

Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council, Ex parte Royco Homes Ltd: 1974

A planning condition imposed solely for some other purpose or purposes, such as furtherance of the housing policy of the local authority, will not be valid as a planning condition.
As to the availability of judicial review or certiorari, Lord Widgery CJ said: ‘it has always been a principle that certiorari will go only where there is no other equally effective and convenient remedy . . An application for certiorari has however this advantage that it is speedier and cheaper than the other methods and in a proper case therefore it may well be right to allow it to be used . I would, however, define a proper case as being one where the decision in question is liable to be upset as a matter of law because on its face it is clearly made without jurisdiction or in consequence of an error of law . . it has always been a principle that certiorari will go only where there is no other equally effective and convenient remedy.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1974] QB 720, [1974] 2 All ER 643, [1974] 2 WLR 805

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .

Cited by:

CitedWright, Regina (on The Application of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Another SC 20-Nov-2019
W challenged the grant of planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to allow erection of a wind turbine, saying that the authority had taken into account a promise by the land owner to run the scheme as a community development . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.471207

Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority v Elsick Development Company Limited: SC 25 Oct 2017

The court was asked whether, anticipating substantial growth, a local authority had power to attach to permissions for development conditions intended to recover sums for pooled fund for infrastructure development.
Held: The appeal failed. Approved strategic development plans and their supplementary guidance are of substantial importance to planning decisions. A planning obligation may be entered into in circumstances which are not connected with any planning application. When considering a planning application, the authority must allow for material provisions of the development plan and other material considerations. For a planning obligation to be material it must have some connection with the proposed development which more than trivial. If a planning obligation, which is otherwise irrelevant to the application, is sought as a policy in the development plan, the policy seeking to impose such an obligation is an irrelevant consideration for determination of the planning application.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 66, UKSC 2016/0157, [2018] JPL 433, [2017] PTSR 1413, 2017 GWD 34-537, 2017 SLT 1231, [2018] 1 P and CR 14, 2018 SCLR 56

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2017 06 13 am Video, SC 2017 06 13 pm Video

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 75, Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal fromElsick Development Co Ltd v Aberdeen City and Shire Stratetgic Development Planning Authority and Another SCS 29-Apr-2016
(First Division, Inner House) ED appealed from the adoption of a supplementary guidance (SG).
Held: The appeal succeeded. The First Division upheld three of the four grounds of appeal advanced. First, the court upheld the submission that the . .
CitedAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
CitedPyx Granite Co Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1958
Pyx Granite had the right to quarry in two areas of the Malvern Hills. The company required permission to break fresh surface on one of the sites.
Held: Conditions attached to the planning permission relating to such matters as the times when . .
CitedFawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council HL 1960
A grant of planning permission was subject to an agricultural occupancy condition: ‘The occupation of the houses shall be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture as defined by section 119(1) of . .
CitedMixnams Properties Ltd v Chertsey Urban District Council HL 1965
The local authority was not entitled under the 1960 Act to lay down conditions relating to the licensee’s powers of letting or licensing caravan spaces to its customers. The freedom to contract is a fundamental right, and that if Parliament intends . .
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 . .
CitedNewbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1981
The grant of a temporary planning permission did not operate to cancel an existing established use. A planning condition requiring removal of hangars was invalid because it did not fairly or reasonably relate to the permitted development. The grant . .
CitedGrampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland HL 1983
The House endorsed the practice of imposing negative conditions in planning consents, upholding the validity of a condition that the development of the site could not commence until the road on the western boundary of the site had been closed by a . .
CitedGood and Another v Epping Forest District Council CA 11-Nov-1993
The Court was asked whether a planning authority could validly achieve by agreement any purpose which it could not validly achieve by planning condition or whether the test for validity was the same in each case.
Held: A council may agree to a . .
CitedTesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others CA 25-May-1994
Three companies competed for permission to build a retail food superstore in Witney. The inspector recommended Tesco’s proposal, but the SSE set aside the inspector’s decision in favour of the local authority’s preference. Tesco sought a declaration . .
CitedTesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 11-May-1995
Three companies had applied for permission to build retail food superstores in Witney. The Inspector had recommended Tesco’s proposal, but the respondent rejected it. Tesco’s had offered to provide by way of a section 106 agreement full funding for . .
CitedMcIntosh v Aberdeenshire Council 1999
Lord MacLean upheld the validity of a planning obligation to build an estate road to serve the owner’s development of his land and also to facilitate the development of neighbouring land in third party ownership . .

Cited by:

CitedWright, Regina (on The Application of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Another SC 20-Nov-2019
W challenged the grant of planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to allow erection of a wind turbine, saying that the authority had taken into account a promise by the land owner to run the scheme as a community development . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.597667

Verdin (T/A The Darnhall Estate) v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 10 Aug 2017

The case concerned a challenge to a decision of the Secretary of State refusing planning permission for residential development. The claimant was successful on a number of grounds, including that the Secretary of State had wrongly rejected, without giving adequate reasons, a proposed condition requiring local firms to be used for the development and a proposed condition requiring local procurement as part of the proposed development.

Judges:

Robin Purchas QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2079 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWright, Regina (on The Application of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Another SC 20-Nov-2019
W challenged the grant of planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to allow erection of a wind turbine, saying that the authority had taken into account a promise by the land owner to run the scheme as a community development . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.593617

Regina (Save) v Gateshead Metropolian Borough Council: Admn 2010

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2919 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 16-Dec-2010
Local authorities were presently bound to plan future housing developments in accordance with Regional Spatial Strategies which the new government intended to abolish. The respondent had previously been told by the court that primary legislation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.428417

Cottrell v Secretary of State for the Environment and Tonbridge and Malling District Councilz: QBD 1982

The land-owner sought planning permission for an established change of use to allow for a caravan on his field. He appealed against the Secretary of States refusal which had confirmed that of the local authority, but had relied on a different ground.
Held: The land-owner’s appeal failed. The Secretary of State’s powers were not limited to finding that the Authority was wrong in law and thus allowing an appeal. He also had the power to confirm the decision for new or different reasons. That is what he had done.

Judges:

Woolf J

Citations:

[1982] JPL 443

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.375203

Hammerton, Regina (on the Application of) v London Underground Ltd: Admn 8 Nov 2002

Planning permissions had been deemed to have been granted for the construction of the East London Line Extension to Dalston. It was proposed to demolish an historic goods yard with associated buildings to make way for the line. The claimant objected that the new line could be constructed to make good use of mucjh of the existing structures. HELD: Permission for review was granted, and the court declared that material operations had already been undertaken in breach of conditions of the permissions.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2307 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 90(2A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDillner, Regina (on The Application of) v Sheffield City Council Admn 27-Apr-2016
The claimant challenged the policy of the respondent council to replace many established trees along streets in the City.
Held: Permission to apply for review was refused: ‘Some concern has been expressed by objectors to the scheme that, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.189094

Regina (Orange Personal Communicatins Services ltd and Others) v Islington London Borough Council: CA 19 Jan 2006

The applicant had already been granted prior approval for the erection and installation of antennae. The respondent then designated the area to be a conservation area.
Held: Once the notification had been given, the subsequent designation could not be used to require the resubmission of any request. The date of approval had already been fixed.

Citations:

Times 24-Jan-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Media

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.238730

Basildon District Council v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions: Admn 2 Feb 2001

The court considered the relevance of personal circumstances to the grant of injunctions in enforcement of planning conditions.
Held: In any considerations of common humanity, the needs of these particular gypsy families were a material consideration because they had a need for this development in this location. Those personal circumstances entitled the Secretary of State to have regard to them as relevant to the decision he had to make in the public interest about the use of the land for the stationing of residential caravans. Their particular need for stability in the interest of the education of the younger children can also reasonably be seen as an aspect of the wider land use interest in the provision of gypsy sites, which interest includes the need for stable educational opportunities. There is also a public interest in the planning system providing stable educational opportunities for gypsy families, including these gypsy families.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2001] JPL 1184

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Planning

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.182494

Regina (on the application of Lebus) v South Cambridgeshire District Council: QBD 27 Aug 2002

The applicant opposed permission for an egg-production unit, alleging that an environmental impact assessment was required. The regulations required a screening review to assess whether an assessment was required. There was no formal record of a screening review having been taken into account by the planning committee.
Held: The failure to record the screening was a defect in the way the decision had been reached, and nor was the council able to allow the application to proceed on the basis that fuller details would be supplied later. In deciding whether an EIA is required, the focus should be on likely significant environmental effects rather than on remediation or mitigation measures; and if a decision runs two issues together and rests on the view that remediation measures will be effective to prevent otherwise significant effects, it deprives the public of the opportunity to make informed representations in accordance with the EIA procedures about the adequacy of such measures. The claim was allowed.

Judges:

Mr Justice Sullivan, Richards J

Citations:

Gazette 19-Sep-2002, [2002] EWHC Admin 2009, [2003] JPL 466

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBellway Urban Renewal Southern v Gillespie CA 27-Mar-2003
The applicant appealed against a decision for development granted in the absence of its own decision. The judge had quashed the decision because of the absence of an environmental impact statement.
Held: When making the screening decision, it . .
CitedYounger Homes (Northern) Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 26-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to quash a planning decision on the basis that a screening decision had not been made.
Held: Though the procedures within the authority could have been bettered, there was no formal requirement for a screening option to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.177319

McGahan and another v Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council: Admn 11 Jul 2002

The appellants had a motorbike dealership, which operated under a planning permission requiring them not to sell or display motor-cycles on the forecourt. They were convicted of breaching that permission when customers and staff parked their own motorcycles on the forecourt.
Held: The magistrates had considered that ‘display’ in the permission meant ‘open up to view’ or to ‘exhibit to the eyes’. The appellants argued that something more was required, either an element of deliberate ostentation or of display of cycles for sale. They were correct. The magistrates had failed to look to the intention behind the cycles being so parked. They were not being exhibited for any commercial purpose. Conviction quashed.

Judges:

Mr Justice Harrison

Citations:

Gazette 01-Aug-2002, Times 30-Jul-2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.174697

Bloomsbury Health Authority v Secretary of State for the Environment: 27 Jul 1992

Application was made for planning permission to use a redundant hospital building in Covent Garden for primarily office use. Policies of the local planning authority sought not only to restrain office use, but also to seek residential accommodation in, inter alia, the appeal building. The Inspector dismissed the appeal.
Held: The decision letter was quashed. The Inspector had not applied, the BWB probability test as to the likelihood of residential use ultimately taking place within the building. The Secretary of State apparently accepted, in argument, that the BWB test applied in principle to a future use, though it was submitted that the test was not applicable where there was – as in that case – a planning objection to the proposed use.

Citations:

Unreported, 27 July 1992

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

Planning

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.219458

Patel and others v Brent London Borough Council: ChD 7 Apr 2004

The claimants, charitable trustees bought land with planning permission subject to an agreement by the defendant to provide roadway improvement. They deposited sums with the authority as security. The roadworks were not completed for 10 years. The claimants sought return of the sums deposited as no longer required.
Held: The claimants had to permit a drawdown unless, and until, the obligation was discharged or modified, as a matter of judgment for the engineer, however the claimants were granted an inquiry on damages from the defendant not having been completed the work within the requisite period.

Judges:

Hart J

Citations:

Gazette 22-Apr-2004

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 106

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.200442

Regina v Cornwall County Council ex p Hardy: Admn 2001

The council granted planning permission although its planning committee had decided that further surveys should be carried out to ensure that bats would not be adversely affected by the proposed development. The question was the adequacy of information provided pursuant to Schedule 3 (where an EIA had been required), rather than the initial decision whether an EIA was required at all. The planning committee had decided that further surveys should be carried out to ensure that bats would not be adversely affected by the development.
Held: Since those surveys might reveal significant adverse effects on bats, it was not open to the committee to conclude that there were no significant nature conservation issues until they had the results of the surveys. The surveys might have revealed significant adverse effects on the bats or their resting places. Without the results of the surveys, they were not in a position to know whether they had the full environmental information required by Regulation 3 before granting planning permission. It was not permissible to defer to the reserved matters stage consideration of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

Judges:

Harrison J

Citations:

[2001] 2001 Env LR 473

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJones, Regina (on the Application of) v Mansfield District Council and Another CA 16-Oct-2003
Plannning permission was sought. Objectors said that it would have such an impact that an environmental impact assessment was required. They now sought judicial review of the decision to proceed without one.
Held: The judge had explained the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187370

Harrods Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 20 Jul 2001

The applicant appealed refusal of the grant of a lawful use certificate, for the helicopter landing pad on the roof of their premises for use by the chairman. The issue was whether the use was such as to constitute an ancillary use. A restrictive interpretation so as to include the words ‘ordinarily incidental’ would support Parliament’s intention that material changes of use should be subject to planning control. The proper test was ‘ordinarily incidental/ancillary,’ not ‘incidental/ancillary’. The appeal was refused.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.166806

Pine Valley Developments Ltd And Others v Ireland: ECHR 29 Nov 1991

ECHR Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Violation of Art. 14+P1-1; No violation of Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved
The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in circumstances where the domestic courts declared the planning permission a nullity on the ground that it had been granted ultra vires. A legitimate expectation relating to property may constitute a possession protected by Article 1 at any rate if it can be regarded as a component of property protected by Article 1. a legitimate expectation may arise notwithstanding the fact that it was beyond the powers of the public body which fostered the expectation to realise the expectation. The legitimate expectation cannot entitle a party to realisation by the public body of the expectation which it is beyond the powers of the public body to realise, but may entitle him to other relief which it is within the powers of the public body to afford, e.g. the benevolent exercise of a discretion available to alleviate the injustice or payment of compensation. The fact that the expectation was founded on an ultra vires act or that the public body had no power to realise the expectation raised and the reason why in law it had no such power (e.g. the potential adverse effect on third parties) may be a reason, and indeed a strong reason, going to the justification for the interference and its proportionality.

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-1991, 12742/87, 43/1990/234/300, [1991] 14 EHRR 319

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedStretch v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jun-2003
The claimant had taken a lease of property from a local authority. Relying upon an option for renewal, he invested substantially in the property, but it was then decided that the option was ultra vires.
Held: Property rights protected under . .
CitedRowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .
CitedTimes Newspapers Ltd and Others v Flood and Others SC 11-Apr-2017
Three newspaper publishers, having lost defamation cases, challenged the levels of costs awarded against them, saying that the levels infringed their own rights of free speech.
Held: Each of the three appeals was dismissed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.165131

Regina v Ceredigion County Council ex parte McKeown: Admn 6 Jun 1997

The claimant sought judicial review of the grant of planning permission for a wind farm. Laws J said that it was nearly impossible to conceive of a case in which leave to move for judicial review would be granted to attack a planning permission when the application was lodged more than six weeks after the planning permission had been granted.

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 526, [1998] 2 PLR 1, [1997] COD 463

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFinn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council and MK Windfarm Ltd CA 10-Oct-2008
Judicial Review must be timely
The appellant challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm on neighbouring land. His application for judicial review had been rejected for delay and on the merits.
Held: The court repeated the requirement that an application must be both . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.137471

Regina v Northampton Borough Council ex parte Rice and Co (Northampton) Ltd and Another: QBD 20 May 1998

A Council decision to approve an application for planning consent was not Wednesbury unreasonable since it had clearly investigated the application very fully and made a decision consistent with own policies.

Citations:

Gazette 20-May-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.87459

Safeway Stores plc v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Others: QBD 3 Mar 1999

An inspector granting permission for an out of town development despite the effect on the town centre had not failed to have proper regard to PPG 6. A change in the wording dropping the requirement for an assessment of the affect on the town ‘as a whole’ was not a significant policy change.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Mar-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88978

Samuel v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another: QBD 1 Jul 1998

Inspector’s decision that any residential use of a caravan involved change of use was not sustainable by use as kitchen for staff in cattery. Notice to remove the caravan went beyond what was needed; but notice re unmoved green belt encroachment was upheld.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Jul-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedCord v Secretary of State for the Environment 1981
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88995

Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2001

A larch tree overhung a garden, but was protected by a tree preservation order. The inspector declined authority to lop it on the basis of its value to the amenity. The Secretary overruled this but his decision was, in turn, set aside by the court on the basis that it was first too indistinct to allow the parties to know just what was allowed, and also that in denying the damage to the amenity value, he had failed to give sufficient reasons for going against the inspector.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Mar-2001, Gazette 29-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Environment

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88780

Cairns, Regina (on The Application of) v Hertfordshire County Council: Admn 2 Aug 2018

Claim for judicial review of a grant of conditional planning permission by the Defendant to itself for the construction of a new secondary school, on a site which is in the Green Belt.

Judges:

Lang DBE J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2050 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620666

Hallam Land Management Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: CA 31 Jul 2018

‘In deciding an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for housing development, how far does the decision-maker have to go in calculating the extent of any shortfall in the five-year supply of housing land? ‘

Judges:

Lord Justice Davis, Lord Justice Lindblom and Lord Justice Hickinbottom

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1808

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620603

Tate, Regina (on The Application of) v Leffers-Smith: CA 29 Jun 2018

Did a local planning authority, when granting planning permission for the construction of a dwelling-house in a village in the Green Belt, err in law in failing to provide reasons for its conclusion that the development would be ‘limited infilling’, contrary to the view of an inspector in a previous appeal decision?

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1519

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618966