Tag: Planning

Millgate Developments Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Wokingham Borough Council: Admn 14 Jan 2011

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendants refusal to release it from a unilateral undertaking they had given.

Judges:

David Pearl J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 6 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 106(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428075

Lebus and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v South Cambridgeshire District Council: Admn 27 Aug 2002

The court cionsidered the relevance of proposed mitigation measures insofar as they might mitigate environmental effects of a development in a proposed egg production unit for 12,000 free-range chickens.
Held: It should have been obvious that with a proposal of this kind there would need to be a number of ‘non-standard planning conditions and enforceable obligations under section 106’, and that these were precisely the sort of controls which should have been ‘identified in a publicly-accessible way in an environmental statement prepared under the Regulations’
‘ . . it was not right to approach the matter on the basis that the significant adverse effects could be rendered insignificant if suitable conditions were imposed. The proper approach was to say that potentially this is a development which has significant adverse environmental implications: what are the measures which should be included in order to reduce or offset those adverse effects?’
Sullivan J said: ‘Whilst each case will no doubt turn upon its own particular facts, and whilst it may well be perfectly reasonable to envisage the operation of standard conditions and a reasonably managed development, the underlying purpose of the Regulations in implementing the Directive is that the potentially significant impacts of a development are described together with a description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and, where possible, offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. Thus the public is engaged in the process of assessing the efficacy of any mitigation measures.
It is not appropriate for a person charged with making a screening opinion to start from the premise that although there may be significant impacts, these can be reduced to insignificance as a result of the implementation of conditions of various kinds. The appropriate course in such a case is to require an environmental statement setting out the significant impacts and the measures which it is said will reduce their significance . . ‘

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2009 (Admin), , [2003] Env LR 17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Planning

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.427034

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council v Windy Bank Dairy Farm Ltd and Another: Admn 12 Nov 2010

The Council appealed against decision of the Magistrates Court rejecting its claim of the breach of planning law by the placing of motor vehicles on the respondent’s land.

Judges:

Munby LJ, Langstaff J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2929 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

e Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/783 4, Town and Country Planning Act 1990 224(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425963

Western Power Distribution Investments Ltd v Welsh Ministers: Admn 22 Feb 2010

Challenge to the decision of the Welsh Ministers to include the Llanishen Reservoir in a list of buildings of special architectural or historical interest under Section 1 of the 1990 Act.

Judges:

Milwyn Jarman QC HHJ

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 800 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408622

Rastrum Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: CA 12 Nov 2009

The company appealed against a refusal of a certificate of lawful use.
Held: Appeal allowed, and Inspector’s decision restored.

Judges:

Sullivan, Ward, Etherton LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1340

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 192

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Rastrum Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 4-Feb-2009
The Court allowed an appeal by the respondents against a decision of an Inspector appointed by the appellant, dismissing the first respondent’s appeal under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the interested party’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384360

Cotswold 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’.

Judges:

Lewis J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Planning

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.518476

Rastrum Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 4 Feb 2009

The Court allowed an appeal by the respondents against a decision of an Inspector appointed by the appellant, dismissing the first respondent’s appeal under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the interested party’s decision to refuse to grant a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development to the first respondent under section 192 of the Act.

Judges:

Sir George Newman

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 184 (Admin), [2009] NPC 23, [2009] 6 EG 101, [2009] JPL 1159

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Rastrum Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 12-Nov-2009
The company appealed against a refusal of a certificate of lawful use.
Held: Appeal allowed, and Inspector’s decision restored. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.381459

South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell and Others: CA 31 Oct 2005

Where proceedings were brought against unnamed persons and interim relief was granted to restrain specified acts, a person became both a defendant and a person to whom the injunction was addressed by doing one of those acts.
As to capturing people as defendants by operation of the definition of ‘persons unknown’, Sir Anthony Clarke MR explained: ‘In each of these appeals the appellant became a party to the proceedings when she did an act which brought her within the definition of defendant in the particular case. Thus in the case of WM she became a person to whom the injunction was addressed and a defendant when she caused her three caravans to be stationed on the land on 20 September 2004. In the case of KG she became both a person to whom the injunction was addressed and the defendant when she caused or permitted her caravans to occupy the site. In neither case was it necessary to make her a defendant to the proceedings later.’

Judges:

The Master of the Rolls,
(Sir Anthony Clarke),
Lord Justice Rix,
Lord Justice Moore-Bick

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1429, [2006] 1 WLR 658

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .
Cited – Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd and Another v Unknown Persons CA 5-Mar-2020
‘This appeal concerns the way in which, and the extent to which, civil proceedings for injunctive relief against ‘persons unknown’ can be used to restrict public protests.’ . .
Cited – Boyd and Another v Ineos Upstream Ltd and Others CA 3-Apr-2019
Appeal from injunctions to Ineos Upstream Limited and various subsidiaries of the Ineos Gropu as well as certain individuals. The injunctions were granted against persons unknown who are thought to be likely to become protesters at sites selected by . .
Cited – London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and Another v Persons Unknown and Others CA 13-Jan-2022
Cases in which local authorities have sought interim and sometimes then final injunctions against unidentified and unknown persons who may in the future set up unauthorised encampments on local authority land. These persons have been collectively . .
Cited – MBR Acres Ltd and Others v McGivern QBD 2-Aug-2022
Contempt Procedures Not to be abused
Reasons for dismissal of contempt application.
Held: The contempt application against Ms McGivern was dismissed and certified as being totally without merit.
The court does not grant injunctions to parties to litigation to be used as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.470692

Odhams Walk Residents’ Management Ltd v Westminster City Council: Admn 13 Jul 2009

Challenge by way of judicial review to the policy of the Westminster City Council that only studio-sized accommodation will be made available in future to housing management organisations like the claimant to offer to their staff.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1712 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Planning, Housing

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.361464

Prokopp, Regina (On the Application of) v London Underground Ltd and Others: Admn 2 May 2003

The claimant challenged a proposed demolition of a Goods Yard by the first defendant and decisions by the two applicable local authorities not to prevent the demolition despite the lack of planning permission.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 960 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.344026

Adlard and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another: CA 17 May 2002

Challenge to planning permission for Craven Cottage football ground.

Judges:

Simon Brown, Mummery, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 735, [2002] HRLR 37, [2002] 2 P and CR 28, [2002] 1 WLR 2515, [2002] 4 PLR 1, [2002] 22 EGCS 135, [2002] JPL 1379

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.282650

Basildon District Council v McCarthy and others: CA 22 Jan 2009

Challenge to decision of the council to take direct action to enforce planning notice.
Held: The Council’s decision had been lawfully and properly reached, so that the challenge to the enforcement notices failed.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Lloyd LJ, Moses LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 13, [2009] JPL 1074, [2009] NPC 10, [2009] 4 EG 117

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town & Country Planning Act 1990 178

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Egan v Basildon Borough Council QBD 26-Sep-2011
The claimant sought a injunction to restrain the defendant council from executing enforcement notices regarding the use of the claimant’s land for residence by several traveller families. He argued that the council had failed to state its exact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280133

Castleford Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 15 Feb 2001

The applicant submitted three alternative proposals for residential development of a site. None provided a play area. No decisions were made, and he appealed. At the inquiry, the inspector rejected the applications on the basis of the absence of such provision. The applicants appealed saying that they had not been forewarned of the intention to take the absence of play areas as a point of significance, and they had not had opportunity to make representations on the point. The appeal succeeded. The inspector had chosen a point about which neither party had had any cause to think representations should be made.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Feb-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.78946

Rockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 3 Jul 2008

The court gave guidance on the meaning of ‘garden’ in planning law.

Judges:

Moses LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2408 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – McInerney v Portland Port Limited QBD 2001
In order to identify whether land comprises of garden, it is necessary not only to look at its appearance and its characteristics, but also to its use. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Crosswait v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Goernment Admn 12-Aug-2009
The claimant appealed against an enforcement notice. He had built a dwelling on land with only agricultural use allowed and without permission. He claimed that the land had been incorporated into a garden.
Held: An appeal would be hopeless. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276987

Fletcher Estates (Harlescott) Ltd and Executors of J V Longmore v Secretary of State for Environment and Secretary of State for Transport: Admn 10 Jun 1997

The date of the acquiring proposal is the date to consider as to planning aspects on deciding whether to quash a certificate of appropriate development.

Judges:

Dyson J

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 538

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961 22(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for Environment v Fletcher Estates (Harlescott) Limited and Secretary of State for Environment v Newell; Longmore and Longmore (the Executors of J V Longmore) CA 11-Jun-1998
Land was to be valued at the date of the proposal to acquire it compulsorily allowing a discount for any damage to the value incurred by the long expectation of that particular proposal and its consequences and not by reference to another proposal . .
At first instance – Newell and others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; Fletcher Estates (Harlescott) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
Where a certificate of appropriate development was issued for land to be acquired compulsorily, the land was to be valued at the date of the proposal to acquire it compulsorily allowing a discount for any damage to the value incurred by the long . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Land

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.137483

Deepdock Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v the Welsh Ministers: Admn 30 Oct 2007

Parties who depended on inshore marine life objected to the proposed planning permission for a marina which they said would adversely affect the seabed and their industries.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3347 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Agriculture

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271166

Wychavon District Council of Civic Centre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others: Admn 19 Dec 2007

The court quashed a grant of temporary planning permission to the applicant gypsies to stand a caravan on a green field site.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3209 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Wychavon 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271215

Dinedor Hill Action Association v County of Herefordshire District Council and Another: Admn 24 Jul 2008

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1741 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271038

Hart District Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others: Admn 1 May 2008

Sullivan J said: ‘Unlike an EIA, which must be in the form prescribed by the EIA Directive, and must include, for example, a non-technical summary, enabling the public to express its opinion on the environmental issues raised (see Berkeley v the Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 AC 603 per Lord Hoffmann at p 615), an appropriate assessment under article 6(3) and regulation 48(1) does not have to be in any particular form (see para 52 of Waddenzee judgment), and obtaining the opinion of the general public is optional . . ‘

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1204 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Planning

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270055