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’. .’
Judges:
Beatson LJ
Citations:
[2013] EWHC 79 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hulme 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:
Cited – 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: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470625
