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

Birchall Gardens Llp and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v BP Mitchell Ltd and Others: Admn 4 Nov 2016

Holgate J
[2016] EWHC 2794 (Admin), [2017] Env LR 17
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 04 July 2021; Ref: scu.571037

David John Withers v The Secretary of State for The Environment, The North Somerset District Council: Admn 9 Sep 1997

The appellants appealed a refusal of an inspector to set aside an enforcement notice with regard to the alteration of use of an outbuilding to a residence. He asserted that no enforcement action having been taken for four years, the enforcement could not proceed. There had been use over a longer period, but there had been a break. In fact, the Inspector had, too gently, expressed his disbelief of the appellant’s evidence. There was no use for the period asserted and the appeal failed.
HC Admin 803
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174(2), 171B(2)

Updated: 25 December 2020; Ref: scu.137748

Cambridge City Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Milton Park Investments Ltd: CA 1992

(1992) 64 P and CR 257
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
[2010] EWHC 979 (Admin), [2010] NPC 57, [2010] JPL 1429, [2011] Env LR 6

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.415075

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

References: [2016] EWHC 1529 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 343
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Coram: Gilbart J
Ratio:Challenge to grant of planning permission with conservation area.
Held: The claim succeeded.

Last Update: 02-Jul-16
Ref: 566266

Regina v North Hertfordshire District Council, Ex parte Sullivan; 19 May 1981

References: [1981] JPL 752
Coram: Comyn J
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 by the local planning authority.
Held: The dominant word in the provisions about demolition, alteration and extension was the word ‘demolition,’ especially where, under the interpretation section, demolition was deemed to refer not only to a building but also to part of a building.
This case is cited by:

Cited – Shimizu (UK) Ltd -v- Westminster City Council HL (Gazette 12-Mar-97, Times 11-Feb-97, House of Lords, Bailii, [1997] 1 All ER 481, [1997] UKHL 3, [1997] 1 WLR 168)
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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 20-Nov-15 Ref: 226087

The Ecclesiastical Commissioners For England v The Vestry of The Parish of St James And St John, Clerkenwell; 25 May 1861

References: [1861] EngR 620, (1861) 3 De G F & J 688, (1861) 45 ER 1045
Links: Commonlii
The exceptions expressed in the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 90, and 19 & 20 Vict. c. 112, s. 3 (the Metropolis Local Management Acts), do not exempt the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, acting under the Church Builditig Acts, from the provisions of the first-mentioned Act, and vestries have, under the first-mentioned Act, authority to pull down such portions of churches, as well as of other buildings, as transgress the provisions of that Act.

Uprichard and others v Fife Council and St Andrews Bay Developments Ltd for Judicial Review andC: SCS 31 Mar 2000

References: [2000] ScotCS 90, [2001] Env LR 122, 2000 SCLR 949
Links: Bailii, ScotC
Coram: Lord Bonomy
Six petitioners sought to challenge the grant of planning permission by the responders allowing a commercial hotel development in St Andrews, which, they said, would adversely affect the landscape and otherwise.

Grampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland; CS 1983

References: 1984 SC 1 13, (1983) 47 P & CR 540
Coram: Lord Dunpark
The Regional Council appealed against the Secretary of State’s decision to issue positive certificates. Lord Dunpark said: ‘Counsel for all parties agreed that the grantor of the certificate must disregard the proposal to acquire. The issue between the appellants and the respondents is whether or not the purpose or reasons for the acquisition must also be disregarded for certificate purposes. On the one hand, it is said that it is nonsense to grant a certificate for development for which the grantor knows planning permission would not be granted. On the other hand, it is said that, as this is a hypothetical, not a practical, exercise, if one has to disregard the proposal to acquire, one must also disregard the purpose of the acquisition.’ and ‘It seems to me to follow from the fact that the value of the land is not to be affected by the prospect of compulsory acquisition that its value is not to be affected by the development proposed by the acquiring authority. One cannot discount the one without the other.’
This case is cited by:

Appeal from – Grampian Regional Council -v- Secretary of State for Scotland HL ([1984] SC (HL) 58, (1983) 47 P&CR 43, [1983] 1 WLR 1340, [1983] 3 All ER 673)
The House endorsed the practice of imposing negative conditions in planning consents.
Lord Bridge of Harwich said: ‘it is difficult to envisage a situation in practice in which the Tribunal, when assessing compensation, could be persuaded to . .
Cited – 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 (Times 23-Feb-00, House of Lords, Gazette 02-Mar-00, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 10, [2000] 2 AC 307, [2000] 1 All ER 929, [2000] 2 WLR 438)
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 . .

Cooper v The Board of Works For The Wandsworth Destrict; 21 Apr 1863

References: [1863] EngR 424, (1863) 14 CB NS 180, (1863) 143 ER 414
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Erie CJ, Willes J, Byles J
Where a land-owner owner had failed to give proper notice to the Board, the Board had, under the 1855 Act, power to demolish any building he had erected and recover the cost from him. The plaintiff said that the Board had used that power without giving the owner an opportunity of being heard. The Board maintained that their discretion to order demolition was not a judicial discretion and that any appeal should have been to the Metropolitan Board of Works.
Held: The claim succeeded. Erie CJ said that the power was subject to a qualification repeatedly recognised that no man is to be deprived of his property without his having an opportunity of being heard. This rule had been applied to: ‘many exercises of power which in common understanding would not be at all a more judicial proceeding than would be the act of the district board in ordering a house to be pulled down.’
Willes J said that the rule was ‘of universal application and founded upon the plainest principles of justice.’ and ‘I apprehend that a tribunal which is by law invested with power to affect the property of one Her Majesty’s subjects is bound to give such subject an opportunity of being heard before it proceeds, and that rule is of universal application an founded upon the plainest principles of justice.’
Byles J said that ‘although there are no positive words in a statute requiring that the party shall be heard yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature.’
Statutes: Metropolis Local Management Act 1855
This case is cited by:

Cited – Bank Mellat -v- HM Treasury QBD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 1332 (QB), WLRD, [2010] WLR (D) 148)
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 . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department SC (Bailii, [2011] UKSC 12, Bailii Summary, SC, UKSC 2010/0062, UKSC 2010/0063, SC Summary)
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Cited – Bank Mellat -v- Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC (Bailii Summary, WLRD, Bailii, [2013] UKSC 39, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 580, [2013] 3 WLR 179, [2013] HRLR 30, [2013] 4 All ER 533, [2013] WLR(D) 244, WLRD, UKSC 2011/0040, SC Sumary, SC)
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – Osborn -v- The Parole Board SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 61, [2013] 3 WLR 1020, [2014] HRLR 1, [2013] WLR(D) 374, [2014] 1 All ER 369, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2011/0147, SC Summary, SC)
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .

Aston v Secretary of State for the Environment; 9 Apr 1973

References: Unreported, 09 April 1973
Coram: Lord Widgery CJ
The court considered the planning effect of a new building on about a half of a site. Lord Widgery CJ: ‘. . The principle which one derives from the authorities and applies to the present case is that, where you have a new building erected, that part of the land which was absorbed in the new building and covered by the new building is merged in it; you start with a new planning unit which has no permitted planning use except those derived from the planning permission, if any, and from section 33(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which allows such a building in many instances to be used for the purpose for which it was designed.’
Statutes: Town and Country Planning Act 1971 33(2)
This case is cited by:

Approved – Newbury District Council -v- Secretary of State for the Environment HL ([1981] AC 578, [1980] 1 All ER 731, [1980] 2 WLR 379)
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be imposed for a planning purpose and . .
Cited – Jennings Motors Ltd -v- Secretary of State for the Environment and another CA ([1982] 1 All ER 471, [1982] QB 541, [1982] 2 WLR 131, (1981) 43 P & CR 316)
The land owners had demolished a building and erected a new building on a small part of the entire site, but without obtaining planning permission. The local authority argued that this was a change of use and a breach of planning control.

Arthur Sidney Petter; Monica Mary Harris v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Chichester District Council: CA 15 Mar 1999

References: [1999] EWCA Civ 975, (2000) 79 P and CR 214
Links: Bailii
Coram: Nourse LJ, Buxton LJ, Sedley LJ
This case cites:

Appeal from – Arthur Sidney Petter; Monica Mary Williams -v- Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & Regions and Chichester District Council Admn (Bailii, [1998] EWHC Admin 544)
The applicants challenged refusal to renew their three year temporary permission to occupy a mobile home on their land. . .
Cited – Regina -v- Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods CA (Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 971, [1997] JPL 958, [1998] Env LR 277)
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 . .

This case is cited by:

Cited – JD Wetherspoon Plc, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Guildford Borough Council Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 815 (Admin), Times 14-Apr-06)
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 . .
Cited – Rencher-Paine -v- Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 382 (Admin))
The applicant challenged refusal of permission for his proposed one bedroom ‘earthship dwelling’. He ran an ostrich farm on the land, and wished to occupy it instead of the caravan presently occupies with temporary permission.
Held: The appeal . .