The claimants challenged the validity of a planning permission allowing the transfer of a camping site permission out of a flood zone.
Held: Ouseley J considered whether the cost of compensation on the amendment of a permission was a material consideration, saying: ‘An expedient decision would, to my mind, necessarily require attention to be paid to the advantages and disadvantages of taking one or other or none of the available steps under section 102. These advantages and disadvantages should not be confined to those which the subject of the notice would face; they should be measured against the advantages and disadvantages to the public interest at large, including the costs and effectiveness of the various possibilities. The question of whether the cost to the public is worth the gain to the public is, I would have thought, the obvious way of testing expediency. At least, it is difficult to see that expediency could be tested without consideration of that factor.’
Judges:
Ouseley J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 71 (Admin), [2010] 2 P and CR 14, [2010] NPC 9
Links:
Statutes:
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 102
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council SC 18-Jul-2012
The Council had granted planning permission for four student housing units. The Executive complained that they were too near to a liquified gas storage depot. The Court was now asked whether the impact of any compensation which might be payable on . .
See Also – Usk Valley Conservation Group, Regina (on The Application of) v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Admn 18-Feb-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.395051
