The landowners sought permission to redevelop their football stadium. The authority were minded to grant the permission, and after an enquiry, permission was granted, but in the meantime another permission was proposed for a larger stadium. This was not called in, depriving the applicants of their opportunity to make their objections, and did not give reasons for not calling it in. The applicants sought the right to make oral representations.
Held: The objector’s argument came close to suggesting that any objector’s argument must be heard by a public enquiry. Planning decisions are ones of expediency. Where the decision depended upon argument, rather than assessment of facts, the need for oral hearings was much reduced. The general power to determine planning applications is with local authorities, and the secretary’s interventions are appropriate to achieve coherence and consistency. Appeal dismissed.
Judges:
Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Dyson
Citations:
Times 31-May-2002, Gazette 27-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 671
Links:
Statutes:
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 77, European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Human Rights
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171254
