Tag: Planning

The John Muir Trust, Re Judicial Review: SCS 4 Dec 2015

Judicial Review of a Decision of the Scottish Ministers dated 6th June, 2014 to grant consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Scottish and Southern Energy Renewables for the erection of 67 wind turbines at Stronelairg, Garrogie Estate, Whitebridge, Fort Augustus together with deemed planning permission under Section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

[2015] ScotCS CSOH – 163
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
Scotland

Planning

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558167

Whitcher v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 28 Oct 2015

The claimant, a Romany Gypsy, applied for planning permission for the change of use of land which he owned at Landford, Salisbury, to a single pitch Gypsy site for one mobile home and one touring caravan. That application was refused by the second defendant. The claimant appealed and his appeal was allowed.

Dove J
[2015] EWHC 3001 (Admin)
Bailii

Planning

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554196

Handoll and Suddick v Warner Goodman and Streat (a firm) and Others: CA 9 Dec 1994

The purchasers of land on which a bungalow had been erected wanted to discover, by way of a preliminary issue in an action against the vendor, whether a condition attached to planning permission would enforceable against them. A planning permission had been granted subject to a condition of agricultural occupancy. However, the bungalow had been erected a short distance outside the area for which planning permission had been granted, and was thus in breach of planning control.
Held: Where a development does not comply in a material respect, or to a material extent, with the permission granted, a condition attached to that permission cannot apply to the unauthorised development.
The Council had argued that its inability to enforce the planning control because of the passage of time could not affect the occupancy and the condition attached to it, looking for support to the decision in Kerrier. Overruling Kerrier, the court decided that A planning authority cannot succeed in an action for breach of condition unless the development to which it was attached by the planning permission has actually been carried out. The reasoning of the Court of Appeal was that if a development has been carried out other than in accordance with the planning permission granted, it is unauthorised and unlawful, and therefore the conditions attached to the permission can have no effect upon it. It would be open to the planning authority to serve an enforcement notice to prevent any use of the unauthorised development (not just a use which breached the condition). However once the time for enforcement had passed, the planning authority would be unable to enforce either the original permission or any conditions attached to it.

McGowan, Peter Gibson LJJ, Sir John May
(1995) 70 PandCR 627, [1994] EWCA Civ 42, [1995] 1 EGLR 173, [1994] NPC 158, [1995] 25 EG 157
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Overruled – Kerrier District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 1981
A building had been constructed on a site, but failed to comply with the permission granted because the basement did not have planning approval. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.552020

IM Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield District Council and Others: Admn 20 Jul 2015

Application to quash local plan alleging: ‘ (1) the planning inspector appointed to conduct the examination into the local plan erred in failing to determine whether the Council’s sustainability appraisal complied with the relevant legal and procedural requirements; (2) the sustainability appraisal and the process of consideration of alternatives by the Council and the planning inspector were legally flawed and unfair; (3) the planning inspector adopted the wrong approach when considering whether it was appropriate to alter the green belt boundaries by releasing the Deanslade Farm and Cricket Lane sites for housing; and (4) the Council had no power to adopt the local plan with the main modifications proposed in respect of the green belt sites, since this departed fundamentally from the spatial strategy it originally set out. ‘

Cranston J
[2015] EWHC 2077 (Admin), [2015] WLR(D) 328
Bailii, WLRD
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 113(3)
England and Wales

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550379

HS2 Action Alliance and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another: CA 11 Mar 2015

[2015] EWCA Civ 203
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Transport

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544225

Protectbath.Org and Victims of Fullers Earth Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Gazelle Properties Ltd: Admn 3 Mar 2015

The Claimant challenged the decision of the Defendant local planning authority to grant outline planning permission to the Interested Party for a residual waste facility and associated development on land at Fosseway Environment Park

Hickinbottom J
[2015] EWHC 537 (Admin)
Bailii

Planning

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543894

No Adastral New Town Ltd v Suffolk Coastal District Council and Another: CA 17 Feb 2015

Richards LJ considered the language of article 6(3), which ‘focuses on the end result of avoiding damage to an SPA and the carrying out of an AA for that purpose’. He noted the difference in Sweetman between the Advocate General’s formulation, but found no support in the court’s judgment for the contention that ‘there must be a screening assessment at an early stage in the decision-making process’: ‘In none of this material do I see even an obligation to carry out a screening assessment, let alone any rule as to when it should be carried out. If it is not obvious whether a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on an SPA, it may be necessary in practice to carry out a screening assessment in order to ensure that the substantive requirements of the Directive are ultimately met. It may be prudent, and likely to reduce delay, to carry one out [at] an early stage of the decision-making process. There is, however, no obligation to do so.’

Richards LJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 88
Bailii
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 December 2021; Ref: scu.543273

Pugh v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 5 Jan 2015

Objector’s application with regard to planning permission for wind turbine, challenging the assessment of the impact of the development on the settings of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Listed Buildings in the vicinity.

Gilbart J
[2015] EWHC 3 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540472

HS2 Action Alliance and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport: CA 9 Dec 2014

[2014] EWCA Civ 1578
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – HS2 Action Alliance Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport and Another Admn 6-Aug-2014
The claimants objected to the proposed HS2 rail link seeking now judicial review of safeguarding arrangements made. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Planning

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539781

Robert Hitchins Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Worcesteshire County Council and Others: Admn 18 Nov 2014

A planning permission was granted with an agreement under section 106. A second permission was later granted. The court was now asked whether the section 106 agreement applied also to the second permission.
Held: As a matter of law, the developer was, after the reserved matters approval perfected the Second Planning Permission, able to elect to continue and complete the development under the Second Planning Permission rather than the First Planning Permission. The developer had elected to continue and complete the development under the Second Planning Permission. The court should not grant the declaration sought by the Claimant.

Hickinbottom J
[2014] EWHC 3809 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 57(1) 106, Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 122(2)
Citing:
Cited – Pye v Secretary of State for Environment and North Cornwall District Council Admn 5-May-1998
An application was made under section 73 to develop land without compliance with conditions previously attached to a planning permission, the relevant condition being that the development commence within five years of the date of planning . .
Cited – Regina v Leicestershire City Council Ex parte Powergen Uk Plc QBD 17-Nov-1999
A planning permission had been granted requiring detailed proposals for the development to be delivered before a certain date. The applicant submitted proposals for part only of the site, requesting a variation to allow such a part proposal. The . .
Cited – Regina v Leicester City Council ex parte Powergen UK Limited CA 2000
. .
Cited – Pilkington v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 1973
A planning permission was granted to build a bungalow on part of the land, site ‘B’, subject to a condition it should be the only house to be built on the land. He built the bungalow. Later the owner discovered the existence of an earlier permission . .
Cited – Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB (‘the Antaios’) HL 1984
A ship charterer discovered that the bills of lading were incorrect, but delayed withdrawal from the charter for 13 days. They now sought leave to appeal the arbitration award against them.
Held: Though he deprecated extending the use of the . .
Cited – Greyfort Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Another CA 28-Jul-2011
The parties disputed whether certain works undertaken amounted to a commencement of operations so as to preserve a planning permission.
Held: Richards LJ equated implementation of planning permission with the start of the permitted works, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538879

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and Regions, Ex P Bath and North East Somerset District Council: QBD 28 Jan 1999

Where an application for listed buildings consent had been refused on the basis that the application was invalid, on an appeal the Secretary of State had the power also to judge on the validity issue.

Times 28-Jan-1999, Gazette 24-Feb-1999
Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (1995 No 419)
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.85492

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 from – Champion 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 from – 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, 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 House – Trump International Gold Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers and Another SCS 11-Feb-2014
Outer House . .
Cited – Sustainable 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 House – Trump 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 House – Trump 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 Also – Wakil (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:
Cited – Smith (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 . .
Cited – Anisminic 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 . .
Cited – Ridge 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 . .
Cited – Donoghue (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 . .
Cited – Ashbridge 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 from – 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’, . .
Cited – London 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Debenhams 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 . .
Cited – Customs 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. . .
Cited – Furniss (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:
Cited – Her 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 . .
Cited – East 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: . .
Cited – 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 . .

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:
Cited – Aannemersbedriijf 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 . .
Cited – Ecologistas 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. . .
Cited – Cambridge 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Landelijke 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.
Cited – Edwards, 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 . .
Cited – Mortell, 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:
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Estates 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

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:
Cited – Residents 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. . .
Cited – Walton 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 . .
Cited – Cala 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 . .
Cited – Turner 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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. . .
Cited – Regina v Leicester County Council Hepworth Building Products Limited and Onyx (UK) Limited, ex parte Blackfordby and Boothcorpe Action Group Ltd Admn 15-Mar-2000
. .
Cited – Stringer 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 . .
Cited – Tesco 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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’. . .
Cited – City 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Newsmith 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 . .
Cited – Midcounties 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 . .
Cited – Siraj, 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 . .
Cited – Tesco 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 . .
Cited – Threadneedle 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

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 from – Barnett 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