Flynn and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 20 Feb 2014

The claimant travellers had been moved from one site, and retationed their caravans on a nearby track. The Council served an enforcement notice alleging unlawful change of use to residential purposes. The Claimants contended that the decision was unlawful in that the Defendant failed to consider whether Mrs Flynn was a relevant occupier as she had an implied licence to occupy the land. Further the Claimants contended that the provisions of section 174 of the 1990 Act must be interpreted so as to enable Mrs Flynn to appeal in order to avoid a breach of her right to respect for her home and private life under Article 8.
Held: The defendant had erred in failing first to establish whether the claimant had an implied licence to occupy the land. Given the limited investigation undertaken by the court the correct thing to do was to quash the decision and remit it to the Defendant.

Lewis J
[2014] EWHC 390 (Admin), [2014] 1 WLR 3270
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174, European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521576

Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Others: CA 18 Dec 2013

The claimant had succeeded in a challenge to the grant of planning permission for the building of two barley silos. He said that the development was near and might affect Site of Special Scientic interest. The Council had at the same time said that there was no requirement for an environmental impact assessment, and that it had to impose conditions which were only available if a threat existed requiring an assessment.
Held:

Richards, Lewison LJJ, Coleridge J
[2013] EWCA Civ 1657
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 61
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromChampion v North Norfolk District Council and Another Admn 7-May-2013
The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for the erection of silos for the storage of barley. He said that the development might adversely impact on a nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest.
Held: The judicial review . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromChampion, 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, European, Environment

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.519217

Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers and Another: SCS 17 Oct 2013

Outer House – Court of Session – This petition for judicial review challenged the decisions of the Scottish Ministers (a) not to hold a public inquiry, and (b) to grant consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction and operation of a deployment centre for testing eleven offshore wind turbines, with a maximum power generation of up to 100MW.

Lord Doherty
[2013] ScotCS CSOH – 166
Bailii
Electricity Act 1989 36
Scotland
Cited by:
At Outer HouseTrump International Gold Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers and Another SCS 11-Feb-2014
Outer House . .
CitedSustainable Shetland v The Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland) SC 9-Feb-2015
Wind Farm Permission Took Proper Account
Sustainable Shetland challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm saying that the respondents had failed properly to take account of their obligations under the Birds Directive, in respect of the whimbrel, a protected migratory bird.
At Outer HouseTrump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers SCS 5-Jun-2015
The petitioner golf course objected to the consent to an offshore windfarm. . .
At Outer HouseTrump 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: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.517021

Wakil (T/A Orya Textiles) and Others v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham: Admn 9 Oct 2013

Second claim for judicial review in which a challenge has been brought to the planning of development in Shepherd’s Bush in west London.

Lindblom J
[2013] EWHC 2833 (Admin)
Bailii
Citing:
See AlsoWakil (T/A Orya Textiles) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham QBD 25-May-2012
The claimant market traders objected to the proposed redevelopment of Shepherd’ Bush Market. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516358

Regina v Collett, Regina v Furminger, Regina v Nazari, Regina v Pope, Regina v Bandar: CACD 28 Oct 1993

The use of land contrary to an enforcement notice is an offence of absolute liability. The burden was on the user of land to establish what uses were lawful.

Times 28-Oct-1993, Gazette 08-Dec-1993
Town and Country Planning Act 1971 89(5)
England and Wales

Crime, Planning

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.86408

Regina v The Secretary of State for the Environment, ex Parte Ostler: CA 16 Mar 1976

Statutory Challenge must be timely

The applicant had not taken objection to a proposed road scheme believing wrongly that it would not affect his business. Other objectors had withdrawn because of secret re-assurances given to them by the respondent.
Held: The court was asked, in effect, whether the decision in East Elloe had been overruled by the Anisminic case. Though it had been subject to some criticism in Anisminic, that case was not directly in point, and the East Elloe decision remained binding.
The system provided for the possibility of an appeal where the aggrieved person felt that there had been some breach of natural justice, but that appeal had to be brought within the time limit provided. Such a decision stood until and unless quashed.

Lord Denning MR, Goff, Shaw LJJ
[1976] EWCA Civ 6, [1977] 1 QB 122
Bailii
Highways Act 1959
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSmith (Kathleen Rose) v East Elloe Rural District Council HL 26-Mar-1956
The plaintiff challenged a compulsory purchase order as unlawful and made in bad faith and sought damages for trespass. Paragraph 16 provided that an order could not be challenged by legal proceedings, save in the circumstances identified in . .
CitedAnisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
There are no degrees of nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .
CitedRidge v Baldwin (No 1) HL 14-Mar-1963
No Condemnation Without Opportunity For Defence
Ridge, a Chief Constable, had been wrongfully dismissed because he was not given the opportunity of presenting his defence. He had been acquitted of the charges brought against him, but the judge at trial had made adverse comments about his . .
CitedDonoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
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.

Administrative, Planning, Natural Justice

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.262708

Irving, Regina (on The Application of) v Mid-Sussex District Council and Another: Admn 28 Jun 2016

Challenge to grant of planning permission within a conservation area. Permission had been given for a single dwellig also with a southerly view over an area of outstanding natural beauty. The land belonged to the council.
Held: The claim succeeded. The council, as planning authority, had erred in its approach to the general duty as regards conservation areas and the exercise of planning functions. Section 72 required it to decide first whether a proposed development would harm the character or appearance of the conservation area. If yes, then that fact was to be given real weight. In so deciding, the decision-maker could not find that because harm would be caused to only a part of the area there would be no harm whenconsidering the section 72 duty since, overall, the area retained its special character.

Gilbart J
[2016] EWHC 1529 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 343, [2016] PTSR 1365
Bailii, WLRD
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 72
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.566266

Shimizu (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 building cannot itself be a listed building.

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Griffiths, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hope of Craighead
Gazette 12-Mar-1997, Times 11-Feb-1997, [1997] 1 All ER 481, [1997] UKHL 3, [1997] 1 WLR 168
House of Lords, Bailii
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
Citing:
Appeal fromShimizu (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’, . .
CitedLondon County Council v Marks and Spencer Ltd CA 1952
While demolition works as such did not require planning permission, works which comprised demolition, site clearance and the erection of a new building on the site were operations for which planning permission would have been required but for the . .
CitedRegina v North Hertfordshire District Council, Ex parte Sullivan 19-May-1981
The court was asked whether an extension of a listed building which involved the demolition of parts of the listed building constituted demolition within the meaning of the Act which required the proposal to be notified to various interested bodies . .
CitedDebenhams Plc v Westminster City Council HL 1987
The extended definition of ‘listed building’ in section 54(9) applied equally for the purposes of paragraph 2(c) of Schedule 1 of the 1967 Act. No rates were to be payable in respect of a hereditament for any period during which it was included in a . .
CitedCustoms and Excise Commissioners v Viva Gas Appliances Limited HL 1983
Any work on the fabric of a building constituted its alteration ‘except that which is so slight or trivial as to attract the application of the de minimis rule’. The word ‘demolition’ meant destroying the building as a whole. . .
CitedFurniss (Inspector of Taxes) v Dawson HL 9-Feb-1983
The transfer of shares to a subsidiary as part of a planned scheme immediately to transfer them to an outside purchaser was regarded as a taxable disposition to the outside purchaser rather than an exempt transfer to a group company. In defined . .

Cited by:
CitedHer Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Zielinski Baker and Partners Limited HL 26-Feb-2004
The commissioners sought to charge to VAT charges for works which had been carried out to a building within the curtilage of a listed building. The taxpayer sought zero-rating.
Held: The outbuilding to which alterations were made must have . .
CitedEast Riding of Yorkshire Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Hobson Admn 18-Apr-2008
The authority appealed by case stated from the dismissal of its complaints that the defendant had altered a listed building. He had been given permission to carry out certain works, but had in effect demolished and rebuilt the property.
Held: . .
CitedSave Britain’s Heritage, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 14-May-2010
The claimant challenged the order allowing the demolition of a disused listed building saying that the Direction was contrary to European law in not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Secretary of State said an EIA was not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Land

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.89238

Save Britain’s Heritage, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 14 May 2010

The claimant challenged the order allowing the demolition of a disused listed building saying that the Direction was contrary to European law in not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Secretary of State said an EIA was not required for a demolition.
Held: The challenge was rejected. Whether an EIA was required for a demolition was presently before the European Court of Justice. Planning permission is not required for demolition of any listed building; any building in a conservation area, any scheduled monument, or any building that is neither a dwelling nor adjoining a dwelling. This has no application to the partial demolition of any of those types of building and those types of building falling within (a) to (c) are subject to separate regulatory regimes.
Whilst planning permission is not required for demolition within the scope of the Demolition Direction, such demolition is subject to the regulatory regime set out in s.80-83 of the Building Act 1984. Demolition without reconstruction is not ‘development’ (because such is on its natural meaning the construction of a new building or new buildings or the alteration or refurbishment of an existing building or buildings)’
In any event the size of the proposed scheme also took it outside the EIA Regulations.

Pellings J QC
[2010] EWHC 979 (Admin), [2010] NPC 57, [2010] JPL 1429, [2011] Env LR 6
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Demolition – Description of Buildings) Direction 1995, Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC), Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, Building Act 1988 80, Town and Country Planning Act 1990 55, General Permitted Development Order 1995
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAannemersbedriijf P K Kraaijeveld v Gedeputeerde Staten Van Zuid-Holland ‘the Dutch-Dykes case) ECJ 24-Oct-1996
ECJ The fact that in this case the Member States have a discretion under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive does not preclude judicial review of the question whether the national authorities exceeded their . .
CitedEcologistas En Accion-Coda v Ayuntamiento de Madrid ECJ 25-Jul-2008
EU Environment And Consumers – Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC – Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment – Refurbishment and improvement works on urban roads – Whether subject to assessment. . .
CitedCambridge City Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Milton Park Investments Ltd 1992
D. wanting to develop an office block, bought neighbouring semi-detached houses hoping to provide additional car parking, enhancing the visual aspects and improving highway safety. When temporary planning consent for use of these properties as site . .
CitedShimizu (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 . .
CitedLandelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, etc ECJ 7-Sep-2004
ECJ Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna – Concept of ‘plan’ or ‘project’ – Assessment of the implications of certain plans or projects for the protected site.
CitedEdwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency HL 16-Apr-2008
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .
CitedMortell, Regina (on the Application of) v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Admn 30-Mar-2007
The claimant sought orders quashing planning permissions granted for the re-development of land around Derker Station. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, European

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.414966

Salford Estates [No 2] Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Dalton Park Ltd and Others: Admn 19 Sep 2012

The court was asked whether the town of Peterlee could truly accommodate four large retail stores.
Held: The claim for review was rejected.
Richardson QC Judge said: ‘It is also a paradigm of the system of planning control in England and Wales that the exercise of the planning judgment is within the sole province of the planning authority (subject to appeal to the Secretary of State). The role of the court is simply to judge the legality of the planning process. The Administrative Court is not an appellate court in respect of the planning merits and will not countenance rehearsal and review of the planning arguments advanced before the planning committee. The arena for argument upon planning merits is the planning committee and not the court. I am very mindful that I must not stray into the arena of planning merits; for to do so would exceed my powers.’

Richardson QC Judge
[2012] EWHC 2512 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSalford Estates [No 2] Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Dalton Park Ltd and Others Admn 19-Sep-2012
The court was asked whether the town of Peterlee could truly accommodate four large retail stores.
Held: The claim for review was rejected.
Richardson QC Judge said: ‘It is also a paradigm of the system of planning control in England and . .

Cited by:
CitedSalford Estates [No 2] Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Dalton Park Ltd and Others Admn 19-Sep-2012
The court was asked whether the town of Peterlee could truly accommodate four large retail stores.
Held: The claim for review was rejected.
Richardson QC Judge said: ‘It is also a paradigm of the system of planning control in England and . .
CitedEstates and Agency Properties Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Barking and Dagenham and Another Admn 21-Dec-2012
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to grant planning permission to Tescos to extend their supermarket.
Held: Review was refused. The application succeeded on one of the four grounds claimed, but that defect . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.464849

Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden: ECHR 23 Sep 1982

Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim

(Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years.
Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct rules: the first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is general and enunciates the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the first paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. The Court further observed that, before inquiring whether the first general rule has been complied with, it must determine whether the last two are applicable. The three rules are not distinct in the sense of being unconnected. The second and third are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule.
The search for the striking of a fair balance ‘between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights’ is inherent in the whole of the Convention.
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – Violation of P1-1; Violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 17+P1-1, 18+P1-1 and 13; Just satisfaction reserved.

Wiarda, Zekia, Cremona, Vilhjalsson
7152/75, [1983] 5 EHRR 35, [1982] ECHR 5, 7151/75
Worldlii
European Convention on Human Rights P1-1
Human Rights
Citing:
See alsoSporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 18-Dec-1984
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
An interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. This balance is . .

Cited by:
CitedJames and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
See alsoSporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 18-Dec-1984
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
An interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. This balance is . .
CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance HL 15-May-2003
The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: . .
CitedSamaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jul-2001
Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation.
Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human . .
DistinguishedAllan Jacobsson v Sweden ECHR 25-Oct-1989
‘According to the Court’s case law, this provision comprises three distinct rules. The first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property; the . .
CitedClingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
CitedWeir and others v Secretary of State for Transport and Another ChD 14-Oct-2005
The claimants were shareholders in Railtrack. They complained that the respondent had abused his position to place the company into receivership so as to avoid paying them compensation on a repurchase of the shares. Mr Byers was accused of ‘targeted . .
CitedBaiai and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 30-Jul-2008
In order to prevent marriages of convenience in the UK the Secretary of State introduced a scheme under which certain persons subject to immigration control required her written permission to marry and would not receive it unless they were present . .
CitedTrent Strategic Health Authority v Jain and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants’ nursing home business had been effectively destroyed by the actions of the Authority which had applied to revoke their licence without them being given notice and opportunity to reply. They succeeded on appeal, but the business was by . .
CitedBank Mellat v HM Treasury QBD 11-Jun-2010
The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of . .
CitedAmbrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
CitedBarnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
CitedSalvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
CitedDepalle v France ECHR 29-Mar-2010
Grand Chamber
The Court summarised the effect of Sporrong: ‘The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, Article 1 of Protocol No 1, which guarantees in substance the right of property, comprises three distinct rules (see, inter alia, . .
CitedCusack v London Borough of Harrow SC 19-Jun-2013
The landowner practised from property in Harrow. The former garden had now for many years been used as a forecourt open to the highway, for parking cars of staff and clients. Cars crossed the footpath to gain access, and backing out into the road . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Land, Planning

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.164907

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

hillingdon_royco1974

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.’

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

Planning, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.471207

Harris and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Broads Authority: Admn 12 Apr 2016

The Claimants say this case raises an important legal issue. ‘Can a public body which in law is not a National Park, represent itself (and allow itself to be represented) as a National Park and thereby to enjoy the benefits of National Park status despite the fact that that authority has decided to cease to seek to become a National Park inter alia because it does not wish to be subject to the legal duties imposed on National Parks and National Park Authorities?’
Held: The claim failed. The phrase ‘National Park’ had come to be an ordinary part of the English language describing an area of countryside, usually one important for its natural beauty, wildlife and recreation. The use of the phrase ‘national park’ was not exclusive to the statutory code for National Parks. The relevant legislation had no legal monopoly over the use of the term ‘national park’, whether capitalised or not.
‘, even if the view were to be taken that, as a matter of fairness, the Authority ought to have consulted on a proposal not to pursue ‘the long-term vision’ in the Broads Plan, it is plain that relief should be refused under section 31(2A). The only purpose which the Claimants suggested for requiring such consultation to have taken place is that consultees could have argued for the adoption of the Sandford Principle either now or in the future.’

Holgate J
[2016] EWHC 799 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 180, [2017] 1 WLR 567
Bailii, WLRD
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
England and Wales

Administrative, Land, Planning

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.562131

Watson and Others v Croft Promo-Sport Ltd: QBD 16 Apr 2008

The claimants were neighbours to a car racing circuit. They complained of noise nuisance.
Held: Simon J said: ‘The Claimants’ objections are not to the car and motor-bicycle racing fixtures which amount to about 20 (N1 and N2) events each year (over approximately 45-50 days); but to the noise from the circuit’s other activities, in particular Vehicle Testing Days and Track Days (when members of the public drive vehicles at speed all day) at noise levels which reach N2-N4 levels.’
(1) a planning authority (including a minister and an inspector) have no jurisdiction to authorise a nuisance, though they may have the power to permit a change in the character of a neighbourhood and (2) the question whether a permissive planning permission has changed the character of a neighbourhood so as to defeat what would otherwise constitute a claim in nuisance is one of fact and degree.

Simon J
[2008] EWHC 759 (QB), [2008] Env LR 43, (2008) 152(18) SJLB 29, [2008] 3 All ER 1171, [2008] 2 EGLR 149
Bailii
England and Wales

Nuisance, Planning

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.375092

Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd: Admn 22 Aug 2013

The campaign company sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent granting permission to develop nearby land as a golf course.
Held: The application succeeded. The Secretary of State in preserving the effect of certain policies had also preserved the supporting text and reasoned justification: ‘it makes no sense to preserve naked ‘policies’ shorn of their intellectual underpinning, interpretative context and expressly factual matrix and justifications. It makes even less sense to seek to preserve the stark wording of policies only, but then somehow proscribe any resort in the future to any ‘map’ or ‘reasoned justification’ or ‘other descriptive or explanatory matter’ or ‘supporting text’ which it was intended by the framers of the policy should be had as a necessary aid to understanding, interpreting and implementing the policy. In my view, there is no conceptual difficulty in saving only ‘the policy’ but permitting, and expecting, consideration of it in its appropriate textural context.’ Applying those properly here the decision could not stand. The requirement to demonstrate a need for such facilities remained, and this was wider than the private interests of those seeking to establish the new course. The plan itself was so long established that it could not now in law be challenged.
The Council majority had failed to apply the ‘very special circumstances’ test when deciding that the Green Belt policy had not been breached, failing to recognise that there was ‘inappropriate development’. Nowhere was there any mention of the Council majority being satisfied that there were ‘very special circumstances’ justifying the ‘inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt. There was no explanation as to why the Council majority disagreed with the planning officers’ advice. The ‘circumstances’ must be ‘very special’ as opposed to common or garden planning considerations. They must also be ‘not merely special, in the sense of being unusual or exceptional, but very special’. The absence of harm or the fact that the harm caused is ‘slight’ ‘will rarely be sufficient to constitute very special circumstances’.

Haddon-Cave J
[2013] EWHC 2582 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 340
Bailii, Justiciary, WLRD
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1999, Town and Country Planning Act 1990
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedResidents Against Waste Site Ltd v Lancashire County Council and Another Admn 7-Nov-2007
The company, formed to oppose it, sought judicial review of the respondent’s decision to grant planning permission for a waste disposal facility. . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedTurner v Secretary of State of the Environment 1974
Ackner J upheld the standing of the chairman of a local preservation society who had appeared at a public local inquiry by permission of the inspector to challenge the decision. Ackner J said: ‘I see no merit in the proposition that a person who has . .
CitedRegina v HM Inspector of Pollution and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex Parte Greenpeace Ltd CA 30-Sep-1993
A campaigning organisation was challenging an official decision which, if stayed, would have adverse financial implications for a commercial company (British Nuclear Fuels PLC) which was not a party to the proceedings. Brooke J had refused a stay. . .
CitedRegina v Leicester County Council Hepworth Building Products Limited and Onyx (UK) Limited, ex parte Blackfordby and Boothcorpe Action Group Ltd Admn 15-Mar-2000
. .
CitedStringer v Ministry of Housing and Local Government 1970
The material considerations to be allowed for by the local authority in exercising its planning functions are considerations of a planning nature, ‘all considerations relating to the use and development of land are considerations which may, in a . .
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 . .
CitedRegina v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods CA 7-Feb-1997
The claimant renewed his application for leave to appeal against rejection of his challenge to the grant of planning permission for a substantial redevelopment of land near his home.
Held: Brooke LJ considered the interpretation of planning . .
CitedRegina v Newbury District Council ex parte Blackwell Admn 29-Oct-1997
Where members of a planning committee reject their planning officers’ advice ‘there must be a rational and discernable basis for doing so’. . .
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 Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hindley Admn 18-Dec-1997
The Home Secretary has the power to fix the tariff sentence for a lifer at her whole life where that was needed in order to satisfy the requirements of retribution and of deterrence.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ said: ‘I can see no reason, in . .
CitedNewsmith Stainless Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions Admn 1-Feb-2001
Application was made to quash an inspector’s decision.
Held: An inspector’s decision was not to be challenged as to its facts. In any case where the expert tribunal is the fact finding body the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness or . .
CitedMidcounties Co-Operative Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Wyre Forest District Council Admn 27-Mar-2009
Ousely J set out the basic standard for the reasons to be given by a planning authority for its decision saying that: ‘The fundamental test is ‘whether an interested person could see why planning permission is granted and what conclusion was reached . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedThreadneedle Property Investments Ltd and Another v Southwark Borough Council and Another Admn 30-Mar-2012
Lindblom J set out three statements of the principles relevant to the issue of reasons: ‘1) A local planning authority’s obligation to give summary reasons when granting permission is not to be equated with the Secretary of State’s obligation to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.514467

North Norfolk Planning Watch Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Mcintyre and Thrower: Admn 19 Dec 2017

Application valid though on wrong form

Challenge to grant of planning permission for demolition of an unlisted building in conservation area. The planning applicants had given all the correct information, but not using the correct form.
Held: The claim failed. The form and application was substantialy to the same effect.

Martin Rodger QC
[2017] EWHC 3345 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 842
Bailii, WLRD
Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.602593

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.’
Sullivan J
Gazette 31-Aug-2000, [2001] JPL 470, [2001] Env LR 406, (2001) 81 PandCR 365
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 54A 70
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.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.87639

Barnett v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 20 Jun 2008

[2008] EWHC 1601 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromBarnett v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government CA 23-Mar-2009
The Court was asked whether a planning permission granted permission for the use of a piece of land for purposes ancillary to a dwelling house, so that that land became part of the curtilage of the house, and permitted the construction of a tennis . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.270841

Pressland v The Council of The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham: Admn 15 Jul 2016

‘The question raised by this claim for judicial review is whether or not an application may be made under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the 1990 Act’) for the grant of planning permission for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a prior approval was granted for development permitted by virtue of a development order made by the Secretary of State.’
John Howell QC
[2016] EWHC 1763 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 24 July 2021; Ref: scu.567208

Mayowa-Emmanuel v Royal Borough of Greenwich: Admn 2 Dec 2015

Challenge to a decision of the Inspector in a decision dismissing the Claimant’s appeal against the refusal of the Royal Borough of Greenwich to grant retrospective planning permission for the change of use of premises from B1 (Business, Light Industry) to a mixed use comprising Class D1 (Place of Worship) and Class D2 (a Community Centre) by the congregation of the Jubilation Heritage and Sanctuary of Praise Ministries.`
Rhodri Price Lewis QC DHCJ
[2015] EWHC 4076 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.564428

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.
Times 23-May-1995, Independent 14-Jun-1995, Gazette 14-Jun-1995
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina (on the application of Reid and another) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another QBD 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2021; 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.’
Lord Denning MR, Sachs, Megaw LJJ
[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
Bailii
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2021; 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.
Richards J
[2002] EWHC 2 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 191 192
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2021; 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.
Lindblom, Irwin LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 427, [2017] WLR(D) 392
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.588333

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

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2021; Ref: scu.85165

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
Sycamore HHJ
[2013] EWHC 973 (Admin)
Bailii
Acquisition of Land Act 1981
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. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2021; Ref: scu.491916

Suffolk 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 the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.’
Held: With some crticisms, the Court of Appeal decision was upheld.
As to Willaston: ‘On any view, quite apart from paragraph 49, the current statutory development plan was out of date, in that its period extended only to 2011.’
As to Yoxford: ‘there was an up-to-date development plan, adopted in the previous year; but its housing supply policies failed to meet the objectives set by paragraph 47 of the NPPF. The inspector rightly recognised that they should be regarded as ‘out-of-date’ for the purposes of paragraph 14.’
‘The important question is not how to define individual policies, but whether the result is a five-year supply in accordance with the objectives set by paragraph 47. If there is a failure in that respect, it matters not whether the failure is because of the inadequacies of the policies specifically concerned with housing provision, or because of the over-restrictive nature of other non-housing policies. The shortfall is enough to trigger the operation of the second part of paragraph 14. As the Court of Appeal recognised, it is that paragraph, not paragraph 49, which provides the substantive advice by reference to which the development plan policies and other material considerations relevant to the application are expected to be assessed.’
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Gill
[2017] UKSC 37, [2017] WLR(D) 319, [2017] JPL 1084, [2017] PTSR 623, [2017] 4 All ER 938, [2017] 1 WLR 1865, UKSC 2016/0076, https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2016-0076/230217-pm.html
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 220217 am Video, SC 220217 pm Video, SC 230217 am Video
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Town and Country Planning Act 1990
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instanceCheshire East Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 25-Feb-2015
. .
At first instanceHopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 30-Jan-2015
. .
Appeal fromSuffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Another CA 17-Mar-2016
The parties challenged the interpretation of a paragraph (49) of the National Planning Policy: ‘In particular, they concern the meaning of the requirement in the policy that ‘[relevant] policies for the supply of housing should not be considered . .
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 . .
CitedSecretary of State for Communities and Local Government v West Berkshire District Council and Another CA 11-May-2016
Laws LJ said that the Secretary of State’s power to formulate and adopt national planning policy is not given by statute, but is ‘an exercise of the Crown’s common law powers conferred by the royal prerogative.’ . .
CitedProclamations, Case of KBD 1-Nov-1610
The King, as the executive government, sought to govern by making proclamations. In particular the court rejected the proposition that ‘the King by his proclamation may prohibit new buildings in and about London’
Held: The monarch had no power . .
CitedPioneer Aggregates (UK) Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1985
The House considered the concept of a spent planning consent.
Held: This was a mineral operation and every shovelful dug amounted to another act of development. Therefore, although it had been begun, the planning permission was not spent and . .
CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AH (Sudan) and others HL 14-Nov-2007
The three respondents had fled persecution in Darfur. They sought asylum which was refused, and they now appealed. It was argued that whilst they had a well founded fear of persecution in Dhafur, that would not apply if they returned to Khartoum. . .
CitedWychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others CA 23-Jun-2008
The court considered the rejection of an application for temporary planning consent by the gipsies to place a caravan on land in a green belt.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There was a requirement to balance the need to maintain the green belt . .
CitedCala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 7-Feb-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a statement and letter by the respondent making a material consideration for planning authorities the intended revocation by the Respondent of Regional Spatial Strategies. The effect would be to allow the . .
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 . .
CitedWilliam Davis Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Governments and Another Admn 11-Oct-2013
One of the grounds of refusal was based on a policy E20 the effect of which was generally to exclude development in a so-called ‘green wedge’ area defined on the proposals map. Lang J recorded an argument for the developer that the policy should . .
CitedCotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 27-Nov-2013
If a planning policy is deemed to be ‘out-of-date’ it was in practice to be given minimal weight, in effect ‘disapplied’. . .
CitedCrane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 23-Feb-2015
‘the weight to be given to the ‘policies for housing development’ in [a] core strategy would, in the circumstances of that case, be ‘greatly reduced’ by the absence of a five-year supply of housing land. However, the weight to be given to such . .
CitedBloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 19-Mar-2014
The company appealed against rejection of its appeal against the inspector’s refusal of its planning application for the construction of 91 new homes. . .

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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; Ref: scu.582173

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.’
Lady Hale, President, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones
[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
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 2017 Oct 16 am Video, SC 2017 Oct 16 pm Video
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; 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.’
Lang DBE J
[2016] EWHC 1870 (Admin)
Bailii
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; 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’.
Laws, Simon LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 936
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; 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.
Mitting J
[2015] EWHC 3808 (Admin)
Bailii
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; 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.’
Elias, Patten, Sales LJJ
[2017] 1 WLR 3765, [2017] EWCA Civ 71, [2017] WLR(D) 105
Bailii, WLRD
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; Ref: scu.575305

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

Langan J
[2010] EWHC 444 (Admin)
Bailii
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; 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.
Times 19-Aug-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2262, [1998] JPL 49, (1998) 76 P and CR 207, [1997] 3 PLR 55
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1970 78
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
hasan_sstiCA2008
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2021; 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.
Times 18-Jan-2000
England and Wales

Updated: 11 May 2021; 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.
Gazette 24-Feb-2000
England and Wales

Updated: 08 May 2021; 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.
Hickinbottom J
[2013] EWHC 792 (Admin), [2013] JPL 1383
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 May 2021; Ref: scu.472512

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

[2012] EWCA Civ 1884
Bailii
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 April 2021; 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’. .’
Beatson LJ
[2013] EWHC 79 (Admin)
Bailii
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 April 2021; 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’.
Simon Brown LJ, Otton LJ, Mummery LJ
[1997] EWCA Civ 2280, (1997) 96 LGR 617
Bailii
Highways Act 1980 278
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.142677

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.
Justice Sullivan
Times 23-May-2002
England and Wales

Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.171288

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.
Gazette 23-May-2002
Acquisition of Land Act 1981 23(2), Compulsory Purchase Rules 1990 17(4), Town and Country Planning Act 1990 266
England and Wales

Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.171267

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

Bean J
[2006] EWHC 2643 (Admin)
Bailii
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.245974

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 . . ‘
Pill LJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 869
Bailii
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 April 2021; Ref: scu.461769

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.’
Staughton LJ, Peter Gibson LJ
Times 03-Jan-1995, [1996] Ch 19, [1994] EWCA Civ 8, [1994] EWCA Civ 32, [1995] 3 WLR 466, [1995] 2 All ER 697
Bailii, Bailii
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. . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.90439

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.
Millett LJ and Sir Ralph Gibson, Russell LJ dissenting
Ind Summary 13-Feb-1995
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 8
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.89239