The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? The court considered also the relevance of personal considerations in planning matters.
Held: Lord Scarman considered what was a material consideration: ‘The test, therefore, of what is a material ‘consideration’ in the preparation of plans or in the control of development (see section 29(1) of the Act of 1971 in respect of planning permission: section 11(9) and Schedule 4 paragraph 11(4)) in respect of local plans) is whether it serves a planning purpose: see Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578, 599 per Viscount Dilhourne. And a planning purpose is one which relates to the character of the use of the land.’
Lord Scarman drew attention to the relevance to planning decisions, on occasion, of personal considerations, saying: ‘Personal circumstances of an occupier, personal hardship, the difficulties of businesses which are of value to the character of a community are not to be ignored in the administration of planning control.’ and
‘However, like all generalisations Lord Parker’s statement has its own limitations. Personal circumstances of an occupier, personal hardship, the difficulties of businesses which are of value to the character of a community are not to be ignored in the administration of planning control. It would be inhuman pedantry to exclude from the control of our environment the human factor. The human factor is always present, of course, indirectly as the background to the consideration of the character of land use. It can, however, and sometimes should, be given direct effect as an exceptional or special circumstance. But such circumstances, when they arise, fall to be considered not as a general rule but as exceptions to a general rule to be met in special cases. If a planning authority is to give effect to them, a specific case has to be made and the planning authority must give reasons for accepting it. It follows that, though the existence of such cases may be mentioned in a plan, this will only be necessary where it is prudent to emphasise that, notwithstanding the general policy, exceptions cannot be wholly excluded from consideration in the administration of planning control.’
On the other hand: ‘It is a logical process to extend the ambit of Lord Parker LCJ’s statement so that it applies not only to the grant or refusal of planning permission and to the imposition of conditions, but also to the formulation of planning policies and proposals. The test, therefore, of what is a material consideration in the preparation of plans or in the control of development in respect of planning permission and in local plans, is whether it serves a planning purpose, and a planning purpose is one which relates to the character of the use of the land.’
Lord Scarman discussed the extent of reasons needed to be given, saying that once there is an explicit requirement on a public authority to provide reasons then they must be proper, adequate and intelligible.
If no new point however was raised by the Inspector, the reasons given by the authority may be a simple repetition of those given to the Inspector.
Judges:
Lord Scarman
Citations:
[1985] AC 661, [1984] 3 WLR 1035, [1984] 3 All ER 744, [1984] UKHL 10, (1985) 50 P and CR 34
Links:
Statutes:
Town and Country Planning Act 1971 29(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – East Barnet Urban District Council v British Transport Commission CA 1962
Lord Parker CJ said that when considering whether there has been a change of use of land ‘what is really to be considered is the character of the use of the land, not the particular purpose of a particular occupier.’ . .
Approved – Edwin H Bradley and Sons Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment 1982
Reasons given for a decision may be brief, whilst still following Poyser. The fact that a procedure is not in the nature of a judicial or quasi-judicial hearing between parties may mean that the requirement to give a party full opportunity to . .
Cited – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1980
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be . .
Approved – Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .
Cited by:
Cited – Wrexham County Borough Council v Berry; South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and others HL 22-May-2003
The appellants challenged the refusal to grant them injunctions to prevent Roma parking caravans on land they had purchased.
Held: Parliament had given to local authorities exclusive jurisdiction on matters of planning policy, but when an . .
Cited – South Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .
Cited – Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd, Re Judicial Review SCS 9-Oct-2009
. .
Cited – Brentwood Borough Council v Ball and Others QBD 8-Oct-2009
The court refused the local authority an injunction to remove gypsies occupying land in beach of planning controls. . .
Cited – FSH Airport (Edinburgh) Services Ltd v City of Edinburgh Council SCS 6-Dec-2007
. .
Cited – MR Dean and Sons (Edgware) Ltd v First Secretary of State, West End Green (Properties) Ltd Admn 11-Jan-2007
. .
Cited – Secondsite Property Holdings Ltd v Borough of Poole Admn 22-Oct-2004
Objection to allocation of land to employment pool under local planning policy. . .
Cited – Pembrokeshire County Council v National Assembly for Wales, Re the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Admn 16-Mar-2005
. .
Cited – Bow Street Mall Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) QBNI 10-May-2006
QBNI Judicial review – application for planning permission for a large development at Sprucefield – application of article 31 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 to the application – decision by . .
Cited – The Fairfield Partnership v Huntingdonshire District Council Admn 23-Oct-2003
. .
Cited – Grant-Nicholas, Regina (on the Application Of) v Bromsgrove District Council Admn 14-Jun-2004
Application to quash district plan . .
Cited – Land and Property Ltd v Restormel Borough Council LT 9-Aug-2004
LT COMPENSATION – modification of planning permission by deletion of retail use from permitted development – depreciation in land value – no approval of reserved matters at valuation date – basis of valuation – . .
Cited – Porter, Searle and Others, Berry and Harty v South Buckinghamshire District Council, Chichester District Council, Wrexham County Borough Council, Hertsmere Borough Councilt CA 12-Oct-2001
Local authorities had obtained injunctions preventing the defendants from taking up occupation, where they had acquired land with a view to living on the plots in mobile homes, but where planning permission had been refused. The various defendants . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd for Judicial Review of A Purported Decision of the Scottish Ministers SCS 30-Jan-2002
. .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Oxford City Council CA 30-Jul-2002
The company appealed against refusal of an application for an order quashing the decision of the Council to adopt Supplementary Planning Guidance on social housing, an order declaring that the Council was not entitled to adopt policies contained in . .
Cited – South Bucks District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Linda Porter CA 19-May-2003
The applicant, a gipsy had occupied land she had bought. Her occupation was in breach of planning control. The inspector found exceptional cirumstances for allowing her to continue to live there. The authority appealed.
Held: The inspector had . .
Cited – Peel Investments Limited v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council Admn 21-Apr-1998
. .
Cited – British Alcan Aluminium Plc v Secretary of State for Environment, Chiltern District Council Admn 27-Apr-1998
. .
Cited – Jackson v Daventry District Council Admn 1-May-1998
. .
Cited – Powys County Council v National Assembly for Wales, and Johnathan Hanson Admn 30-Mar-2000
. .
Cited – Regina v Vale of Glamorgan District Council ex parte David Adams Admn 12-Apr-2000
. .
Cited – Al Wood-Robinson v Secretary of State for Environment and Council of London Borough of Wandsworth Admn 3-Apr-1998
. .
Cited – William Cook Estates and Northern Land Management Limited v Secretary of State for Environment and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Somerfield Stores Limited CA 18-Mar-1998
. .
Cited – Wheeler and Another v JJ Saunders Ltd and Others CA 19-Dec-1994
The existence of a planning permission did not excuse the causing of a nuisance by the erection of a pighouse. The permission was not a statutory authority, and particularly so where it was possible it had been procured by the supply of inaccurate . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Ermakov CA 14-Nov-1995
The applicant, having moved here from Greece, applied for emergency housing. The Council received no reply to its requests for corroboration sent to Greece. Housing was refused, but the officer later suggested that the real reason was that the . .
Cited – Mobil Oil Company Limited v Secretary of State for Environment; Wycombe District Council and Safeway Stores Plc Admn 9-Jul-1996
. .
Cited – Swan v Secretary of State for Environment; Rhys Evans; Barry George Evans and Rhian Elizabeth Marilyn Jones Admn 22-Nov-1996
. .
Cited – Edwin Alan Woodfield v Secretary of State for Environment Admn 20-Jan-1997
. .
Cited – Miller and others v Wycombe District Council CA 27-Feb-1997
Challenge to adoption of a local plan . .
Cited – Land at 34 Manor Road, Pawlett, Bridgewater, Arlidge v Secretary of State for Environment and Sedgemoor District Council CA 9-Jun-1997
. .
Cited – Newport County Borough Council v Secretary of State for Wales and Browning Ferris Environmental Services Ltd CA 18-Jun-1997
. .
Cited – MJT Securities Limited v Secretary of State for Environment CA 30-Jul-1997
. .
Cited – West Midlands Probation Committee v Secretary of State for Environment and Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council CA 7-Nov-1997
Fears of local residents about application for bail hostel were relevant when deciding planning application; impact on neighbours. . .
Cited – Western Aggregates v Hereford and Worcester County Council Admn 28-Nov-1997
. .
Cited – Rexworthy and others v Secretary of State for Enviroment and Leominister District Council Admn 23-Jan-1998
. .
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 7-Feb-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a statement and letter by the respondent making a material consideration for planning authorities the intended revocation by the Respondent of Regional Spatial Strategies. The effect would be to allow the . .
Cited – Uprichard v Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellants challenged the adequacy of the reasons given by the respondents in approving planning policies, in particular the structure plan, adopted by Fife Council for the future development of St Andrews. An independent expert’s report had . .
Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Cited – Wright, Regina (on The Application of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Another SC 20-Nov-2019
W challenged the grant of planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to allow erection of a wind turbine, saying that the authority had taken into account a promise by the land owner to run the scheme as a community development . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Litigation Practice
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.182493
