Planning - 2000

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 75 cases, and was prepared on 10 January 2010.

Regina -v- Mendip District Council ex parte Fabre [2000] JPL 810
2000 Sullivan J	Planning	Casemap 1 Citers
	The planning committee had accepted the officer's recommendation: "… one is concerned with the members’ reasons not the planning officer’s, but where a planning officer makes a recommendation which is followed by the members, the reasonable inference is that the members did so for the reasons advanced by the officer, unless of course there is some indication to the contrary".

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another, Ex Parte Runnymede Borough Council
7 Jan 2000 QBD	Planning
	The respondent built a coach house on the site of a former building with some history of residential use, but within the green belt. The question of whether it replaced an existing dwelling was one of fact and degree for the inspector. He had used the word 'inequitable' in justifying his decision, but this did not defeat his decision.

South Oxfordshire District Council -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another
13 Jan 2000 QBD	Planning
	Extensive grounds of a house had permissions subject to a condition that they should not be used for landing etc of helicopters. For several years the owner flew helicopters from the property relying upon provisions allowing temporary use. His application for permanent permission was refused. The appeal failed because the inspector had properly assessed the factors and concluded the use would not be incidental to the residential use. New arguments might be raised on appeal, but not always and not in this case.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Riordan Communications Ltd -v- South Buckinghamshire District Council
18 Jan 2000 QBD	Planning
	Where a permission required work to be commenced within a certain time period, and work was indeed commenced, it was not open for the planning authority to suggest that although the work had been begun, there was no intention to complete it, and that accordingly that the permission was revoked. It was held that there was no requirement for any subjective intention to complete the works at the time they were begun.

Hughes -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 506
19 Jan 2000 CA Kennedy LJ, Thorpe LJ, Mance Lj	Planning	Casemap 1 Cites
	A house had been unused since 1960, and was bought in 1990. It had become delapidated and the applicant wished to rebuild. The applicant was entitled to permission only if he could show the original residential use had not been lost. Held: The residential use had been abandoned. The test was an objective one, looking at the intention of the owner, the condition of the building, the period of non-use, and whether there had been any other intervening use. "Evaluating all four factors, the inspector was, in my judgment, entitled to conclude, as she did, that residential user had been abandoned. That may not have been the intention of Mr Giddings any more than it was the intention of Mr Hughes; but the intentions of the site's successive owners, although relevant, were not and could not be decisive, because at the end of the day the test must be the view to be taken by a reasonable man with knowledge of all of the relevant circumstances. "
	Link[s] omitted

Hyde Park Residence Limited -v- Secretary for Environment, Transport & Regions & Westminster City Council; [2000] EWCA Civ 13
26 Jan 2000 CA	Planning
	Link[s] omitted

Ball -v- Secretary of Satte for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another
27 Jan 2000 QBD	Planning, Natural Justice, Administrative
	The applicant had appealed against an enforcement notice saying that the four year rule applied. The inspector issued his decision after the expiry of a time limit, but after the applicant had requested a further short period in which to make representations. It was held to be unfair to have proceeded without allowing more than a week for representations. B had suffered substantial prejudice for the failure to allow him to make such representations, and the decision was set aside.

Regina -v- Durham County Council Ex Parte Huddleston
28 Jan 2000 QBD	Planning, Environment	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A quarry owner had allowed his mineral extraction licence to lapse, and sought to renew the permission. The authority failed to issue a decision within the appropriate time period, and a deemed permission was granted. It was held however that where an application would as in this case require an environmental impact assessment, a deemed consent would require such an assessment also.

Regina -v- Tandbridge District Council and Another, Ex Parte Al-Fayed
1 Feb 2000 CA	Personal Injury, Administrative, Planning	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A planning authority disallowed an objection to the erection of a mobile telephone transmitter. Although there had been an omission in the procedure followed by the council, it was clear that it had in fact considered the evidence put forward by the objector, and had made its decision in the light of that evidence. Objectively unjustified fears in a local community might be taken into account, but in this case they should not.

Porter -v- Snowdonia National Park
13 Feb 2000 QBD	Planning
	The applicant had operated a caravan and camping site for seven years. He was allowed three caravans within the curtilage of his farmhouse, but argued for an additional fourth under the General Permitted Development Order. Held the fourth caravan was in excess, and therefore the three remaining caravans also failed to comply, and the respondent had properly been convicted of failing to comply with the enforcement notice.

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 [2000] UKHL 10; [2000] 2 AC 307; [2000] 1 All ER 929; [2000] 2 WLR 438
17 Feb 2000 HL Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough, Lord Millett	Land, Planning	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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 expectation of that particular proposal and its consequences and not by reference to another proposal which it replaced.
	Land Compensation Act 1961 22(2) - Planning and Compensation Act 1991 65(1)
	[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]

David Wilson Homes Ltd -v- Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Another
24 Feb 2000 COL	Planning
	Land was designated as being of high landscape value and included in the green belt under the new unitary development plan. The council had taken into account a similar designation under the previous plan when it was not to do so, and had created a false dichotomy in its analysis. It had also failed to give adequate reasons from departing from the recommendations of the inspector. The designation as green belt land was set aside.

R -v- Surrey County Council Ex Parte Bridge Court Holdings Ltd and Others
24 Feb 2000 QBD	Planning, Registered Land
	Land was transferred to a company but the transfer not registered. The land had the benefit of a certificate of lawfulness of existing use for waste disposal. Doubts had arisen in the local authority about the correctness of the certificate, and they revoked it. They failed to serve the new owners or an occupier of part of the land. They failed also to investigate the circumstances as advised by their officers. The revocation was set aside as Wednesbury unreasonable.

Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & Regions and Another -v- Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 60; [2001] QB 59; [2000] 2 PLR 84
25 Feb 2000 CA	Land, Planning	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The meaning of 'curtilage' whilst not strictly a term of art had caused considerable difficulties. There was nothing inherent in the concept to imply any limitation that the area should be small. In this case the curtilage of a manor house could clearly include stable houses 200 meters from the main house. Accordingly those buildings were included within the property subject to the listed buildings order. The general legislative purpose of both regimes is the protection of the national heritage, and the particular purpose of the extending provisions is to ensure that not only the heritage property itself, but also its fixtures and its environment, are protected.
	Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 - Ancient Monuments and Archeological Areas Act 1979 61(7)
	[ Bailii ]

The Trustees of JH Higgins (Deceased) and J Hitchings Discretionary Trust
2 Mar 2000 QBD	Planning
	An application had been made for permission for a Motorway Service Area. The initial application was granted on the grounds of the needs, as then defined, under department guidance ad policies. After the appeal, new guidance was given. The Secretary of State allowed the appeal under the new criteria. It was held that he had not improperly confused two criteria for need, and nor had he misled the applicants, nor failed to give them opportunity to make representations.

Regina -v- Caradon District Council Ex Parte Knott [2000] 3 PLR 1
3 Mar 2000 QBD	Planning	Casemap 1 Citers
	A planning authority had already issued both rectification and discontinuance notices, and there was now no dispute with the land owner about the need to dismantle existing buildings, it amounted to an abuse of process further to go and issue an enforcement notice which would have the sole purpose of depriving the land owner of any right to claim compensation. Such a notice could only be issued for a genuine planning purpose. That was absent here.

Hyde Park Residence Ltd -v- Secretary of State for et Environment Transport and the Regions and Another
14 Mar 2000 CA	Constitutional, Planning, Landlord and Tenant
	An Act might include a power to amend another by secondary legislation, but any such power must be construed narrowly. The owners of property sought to change its use from long term residential use to a use for short term visitors. S25 of the main Act remained unaffected by subsequent secondary legislation.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 172 - Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 25

Regina -v- Durham County Council and Others Ex Parte Huddleston [2000] 1 WLR 1484
15 Mar 2000 CA	Planning, Environment, European	1 Cites 1 Citers
	A quarry owner had allowed his mineral extraction licence to lapse, and sought to renew the permission. The authority failed to issue a decision within the appropriate time period, and a deemed permission was granted. The UK system appeared not to require an environmental impact assessment to be made before such a grant, in breach of European law. It was held that under such circumstances, a private individual deprived of his rights under European law, should be allowed to challenge the deemed permission. The directive had direct effect.

ADT Auctions Limited -v- Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Hart District Council [2000] EWHC Admin 305
16 Mar 2000 Admn Jowitt J	Planning
	Link[s] omitted

Braithwaite and Another -v- Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council [2000] EWHC Admin 306
17 Mar 2000 Admn	Planning
	The claimants owned land designated as green belt. They sought its exclusion from the green belt and designation for employment purposes. At the enquiry, the inspector agreed, and recommended accordingly. The council took the land from the green belt, but allocated it within the UDP as open space. They refused to re-open the enquiry. Held: The decision was quashed. The designation as open space had not been considered at the enquiry, and the council had failed to consider properly the landowners representations.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 287
	Link[s] omitted

Fenland District Council -v- Reuben Roae (Properties) Ltd
6 Apr 2000 CA	Planning, County Court Rules
	The owner of a listed building obtained consent for certain works, but the local authority failed to notify the Secretary of State. Later the works were to be started, and the authority claimed that the consent was void, and sought an injunction. It was held that the injunction was capable of being granted under the clear words of the Act, and it was the clear duty of the authority in the circumstances to seek an injunction. The fact that they were at fault did not absolve them of that duty.
	Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

Richmond London Borough Council -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another
6 Apr 2000 QBD	Planning
	The landowner sought permission to change a property from being used as eight single room flats into one residence. The authority contended that this was a change of use, but the inspector decided against them. It was held that the inspector had erred. The desirability of retaining several small housing units was a valid consideration, and should not have been excluded by him. The rules regarding alteration within the same use class only applied once it had been established what the use class was.
	Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987

Fernback; Berger; Jacobs; Strachan and Wong -v- London Borough of Harrow [2000] EWHC Admin 278
11 Apr 2000 Admn	Planning	Casemap
	Link[s] omitted

Roger Raymond Jarmain -v- Secretary of State for Environment and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 126; [2000] 2 PLR 126
12 Apr 2000 CA Brooke LJ	Planning	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Brooke LJ contrasted a "purist" approach and a "pragmatic" approach to questions of planning enforcement and preferred the pragmatic approach: "Anyone who had any experience of the operation of the former law relating to the enforcement of planning control knows that it was disfigured by time-consuming litigation over technicalities, raised by determined litigants who sought to evade the effects of enforcement action taken against them by local planning authorities on behalf of their local communities. From time to time, there were judicial explosions on the topic." and "I am quite satisfied that one of parliament's main purposes in 1991, in overhauling Part II of the 1990 Act, was to spare those like Mr Eyre the pain of returning to those arid technicalities."
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Vale of Glamorgan Dc ex parte David Adams [2000] EWHC Admin 323
12 Apr 2000 Admn	Planning
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Epping Forest District Council, ex parte Philcox (2) [2000] EWHC Admin 324; [2000] EWHC Admin 325
13 Apr 2000 Admn	Planning
	Link[s] omitted

MacGay Limited -v- Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Harrogate Borough Council -v- Heather I've Associates; JJ Harrison (Properties) Limited -v- and Swayfields Limited [2000] EWHC Admin 330
14 Apr 2000 Admn	Planning, Transport
	Link[s] omitted

Forte Ltd -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another
14 Apr 2000 QBD	Planning
	An inspector refused the applicant's appeal after refusal of permission for Travelodge, finding that the proposed development was not an employment use within the structure plan and the local plan, but it did impact on the supply of land for business industry and warehousing, and the need for this type of development did not outweigh other planning considerations. A further appeal was rejected. The inspector had properly concluded that the development would contravene the policies, and explained how such a development would be harmful.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) -v- North Yorkshire County Council [2000] EWHC Admin 336
19 Apr 2000 Admn	Road Traffic, Planning	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- North West Leicestershire District Council and Another, Ex Parte Moses
28 Apr 2000 CA	Planning, Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Cites
	The authority granted approval of an extension of the airport runway in 1994, but on a later application required an environmental impact assessment. That was provided, and dealt with the impact of both extensions. The applicant sought judicial review of the first approval. He argued that the delay was overborne by the importance now attached to such procedures. Held: The application for review was refused. The considerable delay had allowed many millions of pounds to be spent, and further money would be spent taking down what had been built.
	Supreme Court Act 1981 31(6)

Berkeley -v- Secretary of State For The Environment and Others [2000] 3 WLR 420; [2001] 2 AC 603; [2000] UKHL 36; [2000] 3 All ER 897
11 May 2000 HL Lord Hoffmann	Environment, Planning	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Where a planning application if completed would have a substantial effect on the environment, and an environmental impact assessment should have been first obtained, it was not possible to dispense with that assessment and to deem it to have been supplied where it was thought that the assessment would make no difference, or that the authority or secretary of state in fact had all the information which would have been provided. The Directive prescribed a particular procedure which was to be followed. In the absence of at least substantial compliance, the court should not exercise its discretion to validate retrospectively a breach of the Directive, even if satisfied that the result would have been the same.
	Council Directive 85/337/EEC - Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (1988 No 1199)
	Link[s] omitted

William Morrison Supermarkets plc -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Stockton on Tees Borough Council [2000] EWHC Admin 331
11 May 2000 QBD	Planning
	The applicant appealed a refusal of planning permission for a super-store. The inspector said the store would conflict with the development plan and was on balance disadvantageous. The Secretary of State received further representations and allowed for them, but said they had added nothing new. Held: The Secretary had failed to take properly into account two considerations, the need for such a store, and the removal of the college from the site. The applicant had also been prejudiced by the reception of the representations.
	Link[s] omitted

Bracken -v- East Hertfordshire District Council
11 May 2000 QBD	Agriculture, Planning
	An enforcement notice was served on the land owner alleging change of use from agricultural to the storage of building materials and waste and agriculture. The plan incorrectly included the applicant's house. The applicant challenged the enforcement notice, but failed before the magistrates and on a case stated. The error did not mean that the enforcement notice ceased to be such, and could have been dealt with by other procedures.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 179(2)

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Rochford District Council [2000] EWHC Admin 337
12 May 2000 Admn Turner J	Planning
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Restormel Borough Council ex parte Parkyn; Regina -v- Restormel Borough Council ex parte Corbett [2000] EWHC Admin 344
19 May 2000 Admn	Planning
	Link[s] omitted

Hawkins -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another
25 May 2000 QBD	Planning, Agriculture
	The applicant sought permission to continue to use a dwelling in breach of an agricultural occupation restriction. There was no evidence that the property had no realistic prospect of sale subject to the condition, and the inspector found that the restriction had not outlived its usefulness. The inspector was entitled to make a judgment as to the prospects of sale and had not taken into account irrelevant matters.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions, ex parte Rochford District Council
31 May 2000 QBD	Planning, Administrative
	A council had failed to fulfil its obligation to update and republish its local plan. The applicant had sought permission to develop a block of flats, but the council failed to determine the application. He appealed to the inspector who also awarded him a contribution to his costs on the basis that there was no proper reason for state of the council's plan, and because of an error in the application of a policy. On appeal it as held that though the faults pre-dated the application, that was clearly provided for in Circular 8/93

St Paul's Development Ltd -v- Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council and another
31 May 2000 QBD	Planning
	The applicant sought residential use of one plot of land. The authority designated it for employment use, and took land out of the Green belt for housing. After a Unitary Development Plan enquiry, the applicant appealed again, and the inspector made certain findings and recommendations. The Authority went ahead with the UDP. Held: The Authority had erred in publishing the plan without taking on board the inspectors new findings, and should have considered holding a new enquiry.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 78, 287

E -v- Camden London Borough Council, Ex Parte Williams
6 Jun 2000 QBD	Planning
	Whether a delay in appealing against a planning decision became so protracted as to bar the challenge was a question of fact according to the circumstances of each case. The six weeks period mentioned in R v Ceredigion County Council ex p McKeown cannot be universally applied. The person may not learn of the permission for some time.

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte O'Byrne
8 Jun 2000 QBD	Housing, Planning, Local Government	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector held that the green belt policy itself would not be affected, but a sale would impinge on the management of the park where the flat was situated. The refusal was correct, since it could not have been intended that the inspector should limit himself to consideration only of the green belt issues.
	Housing Act 1985 118 - Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938

Postermobile Plc -v- Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council
8 Jun 2000 QBD	Planning, Construction
	A builder was convicted after having a hoarding erected which announced forthcoming building works, but where such works were not in fact begun within the three month rule. The conviction was upheld, since the regulations were quite clear. The rule was a relaxation, and it was for those taking advantage of that relaxation to bring themselves within it.

Regina -v- Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Ex Parte Trustees of the Council for the Protection of Rural England Unreported, 12 June 2000
12 Jun 2000 CA	Planning	Casemap 1 Citers

Hertsmere Borough Council -v- Reid Estates Ltd
22 Jun 2000 QBD	Planning
	The authority gave permission for a road-side sign on condition that it was kept clean and tidy. They later issued a notice requiring its removal, complaining that it had become overgrown and partly obscured. The sign and site were tidied, but the authority prosecuted. They appealed the magistrates dismissal of the information. On appeal the question was as to the condition of the notice at the time it was served, not whether it had been remedied. The permission had accordingly lapsed.
	Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 224

Regina -v- Bolsover District Council, Ex Parte Paterson
6 Jul 2000 QBD	Planning
	A coach house itself had a separate listing in the register from the house in the grounds of which it lay. The house owner obtained permission for work on a garage close to the coach house, but no notice was given to the owner of the coach house. Held: The breach of the rules was made out. Each listed building which might be affected by the development was to be considered separately. The development might affect the coach house, and the owner should have had opportunity to present his arguments before the permission was granted.
	Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (1995 No 419)

Regina and Northampton Borough Council ex parte Northampton Rapid Transit System [2000] EWHC Admin 367
10 Jul 2000 Admn	Planning, Transport
	Link[s] omitted

County Properties Limited -v- the Scottish Ministers [2000] ScotCS 212
25 Jul 2000 OHCS Lord Macfadyen	Human Rights, Planning, Scotland, Scotland	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The company applied for planning permission. The Secretary of State called in the application to be decided by a reporter. The applicant complained that this infringed its right to a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Such a person might deal with issues of fact, but here he would also be making the decision, and the objection was lodged by an agency for which the Secretary was responsible. The Secretary was judge in his own cause.
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex Parte Milne (2) [2001] JPL 470; [2001] Env LR 406; (2001) 81 P&CR 365
31 Jul 2000 QBD Sullivan J	Planning, Environment	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Developers submitted applications for outline permission for the development of a business park. The applicant sought to quash the grant on the basis that the environmental assessment was insufficiently detailed, and contained reserved matters, and that the development conflicted with the applicable unitary development plan. Held: The intent of the legislation had been satisfied, and as much information as was available had been provided. Some residual flexibility was inevitable: "a legalistic approach to the interpretation of development plan policies is to be avoided". It was also common for such permissions to conflict in part with the UDP. Where outline planning consent is being applied for, it is at the outline consent stage that the planning authority must have sufficient details of the proposed development, sufficient details of any impact on the environment, and sufficient details of any mitigation to enable it to comply with its article 4(2) obligation. An authority need not require further details of a matter where it is "satisfied that such details , provided they are sufficiently controlled by condition, are not likely to have significant effect." Mr Jones submits that such is the case here. There was a well established mitigating technique involving negative pressure which virtually eliminated any environmental problem. A planning authority is entitled to assume that the Environmental Agency will carry out its functions "with a reasonable degree of competence." “the development which is described and assessed in the Environmental Statement must be the development which is proposed to be carried out and therefore the development which is a subject of the development consent and not some other development” and the "…..local planning authority will need to be satisfied that the description of the proposed development in the outline planning permission is adequate, given that it will be able to impose conditions in respect of reserved matters so that matters of detail can be dealt with at a later stage". and "Any major development project will be subject to a number of detailed controls, not all of them included within the planning permission. Emissions to air, discharges into water, disposal of the waste produced by the project, will all be subject to controls under legislation dealing with environmental protection. In assessing the likely significant environmental effects of a project the authors of the environmental statement and the local planning authority are entitled to rely on the operation of those controls with a reasonable degree of competence on the part of the responsible authority: see, for example, the assumptions made in respect of construction impacts, above. The same approach should be adopted to the local planning authority's power to approve reserved matters. Mistakes may occur in any system of detailed controls, but one is identifying and mitigating the 'likely significant effects', not every conceivable effect, however minor or unlikely, of a major project." "It is not at all unusual for development plan policies to pull in different directions. A proposed development may be in accord with development plan policies which, for example, encourage development for employment purposes, and yet be contrary to policies which seek to protect open countryside. In such cases there may be no clear cut answer to the question: 'is this proposal in accordance with the plan?' The local planning authority has to make a judgment bearing in mind such factors as the importance of the policies which are complied with or infringed, and the extent of compliance or breach."
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 54A 70

Regina -v- Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council, Ex Parte Eminian
17 Aug 2000 QBD	Planning, Road Traffic
	When a householder applied for leave to construct a vehicular crossing over a footway to the carriageway, the highway authority was entitled to consider the effect such a way would have on the controlled parking zone, and could go beyond the elements listed in the section. Here the grant of the right would have reduced the number of parking spaces available within the zone, and this was enough reason to refuse consent.
	Highways Act 1980 184(1)

Buckinghamshire County Council -v- Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and J Brown [2000] EWHC Admin 386; [2001] 1 PLR 38
31 Aug 2000 Admn Mr Robin Purchas Q.C	Planning, Company	Casemap 1 Citers
	The principal shareholder and managing director of a company which was the sole tenant of a building was competent to object to a planning enforcement notice. The corporate veil was not to be set aside except in special circumstances, and in this case the company was no mere sham or front. However, the managing director could be said in law to be occupying part of the building as licensee, and so achieved a sufficient standing through that path.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174
	Link[s] omitted

Beyers -v- Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Uttlesford District Council [2000] EWHC Admin 387
31 Aug 2000 Admn	Planning	Casemap 1 Cites
	The appellant challenged refusal of leave to fell a tree protected by a tree preservation order. The tree was old and large, and its roots had begun to undermine the claimant's buildings. The original consent to a reduction of the crown of the tree by 50% had not been accompanied by the proper certificate as to the tree's amenity value, but one was served later. The claimant had since been advised that damage could only be avoided by it being felled. He sought compensation for the damage, and the authority replied that his claim was out of time. Held: The regulation required the authority's decision to be certified. That required formal notification of the decision. The certification procedure could only take place at the time of the decision, and not by a certificate issued separately. The first respondent's decision upholding the validity of the certificate was incorrectly based and ineffective.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1971 - Town and County Planning (Tree Preservation Order) Regulations 1969
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Derbyshire County Council Ex parte David Murray [2000] EWHC Admin 393
6 Oct 2000 Admn	Planning
	Link[s] omitted

Retail Media and Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions and Macclesfield Borough Council [2000] EWHC Admin 398
11 Oct 2000 Admn	Planning, Media
	Link[s] omitted

Rumsey -v- Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions and Waverley Borough Council [2000] EWHC Admin 399
11 Oct 2000 Admn	Planning
	Link[s] omitted

Federal Mogul Corporation -v- Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions [2000] EWHC Admin 395
11 Oct 2000 Admn	Planning
	Link[s] omitted

Alan Frank Sage -v- Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions and Maidstone Borough Council Times, 23 October 2001; [2000] EWHC Admin 394
11 Oct 2000 Admn Keene LJ	Planning
	An enforcement notice was issued. The land-owner resisted, saying that the building had been substantially completed more than four years before. Held: It was necessary only that the building works permitted by the permission should be complete, and not that the building should be complete in other ways so as to have made it habitable.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171B(1)
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Derbyshire County Council Ex Parte Murray
19 Oct 2000 QBD	Planning, Environment
	The applicant sought to challenge the grant of licences for extraction of clay and other minerals. He claimed that the authority had failed to give proper consideration to the guidance from the department, that they had failed to give proper weight to the objectives required, and that the environmental report was inadequate. It was held that the authority had indeed properly allowed for the report, that the authority having considered the objectives, it was not open to the court to look at what importance had been assigned to the different elements, and that the environmental assessment had been challenged too late in the proceedings.

Eastbourne Borough Council -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions, and Batey and Another
19 Oct 2000 QBD	Planning
	The landowners were granted permission to change the use of their guesthouse to private use. The change was challenged on the basis that the inspector had misapplied the policy regarding 'financial viability of a continuing tourist operation,' and that he had failed to make proper allowance for non-financial reasons requiring its continued use for tourist purposes. It was held that the phrase 'financial viability' could be read in the way the inspector had, but he had indeed dealt with the non-financial aspects in only one line of his report, which could not be sufficient. He did not indicate whether he had accepted that some guesthouses operated on low rates of return.

Belmont Riding Centre Ltd -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another
26 Oct 2000 QBD	Planning
	The land owner applied for permission to upgrade an indoor riding centre. The Secretary of State upheld the inspector's decision. The claimant's appeal was dismissed. The inspector had become seriously ill during the inquiry, and had delayed its completion, but he had considered properly the change of emphasis between outdoor and indoor activity, the intensification of use, and the particular character of the claimant's proposals. The Inspector's failure to repeat every item of evidence did not suggest that he had forgotten any of it, and he had properly considered and rejected the applicant's arguments.

Regina -v- North Somerset District Council, ex parte Cadbury Garden Centre Ltd
27 Oct 2000 CA Aldous LJ, Schiemann LJ, Brooke LJ	Planning	Casemap 1 Cites
	A permission had been granted for a garden centre with a limited sales area. The applicant had objected that the new building covered a greater area than allowed, and sought that the permission be quashed as invalid. The council appealed the quashing of the order. Held: The court has a discretion not to quash a planning permission which had in fact been unlawfully granted. The records of the extent of the area were no longer available, but it appeared to have been implemented in excess of the permitted size. Nevertheless, the objector had not established any impairment of its own visual amenity, and the new buildings seemed to be an improvement, and it had not affected the rural character of the neighbourhood. The grant should stand.

Telecom Securicor Cellular Radio Limited -v- National Assembly for Wales -v- Brecon Beacons National Park Authority [2000] EWHC Admin 412
2 Nov 2000 Admn	Planning
	Link[s] omitted

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) -v- the City of Edinburgh Council and East of Scotland Water, Application for Judicial Review of a Decision By the Respondents To Grant Planning Permission [2000] ScotCS 272
3 Nov 2000 SCS	Scotland, Planning
	Link[s] omitted

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) -v- the City of Edinburgh Council and East of Scotland Water for Judicial Review of A Decision By the Respondents To Grant Planning Permission
3 Nov 2000 SCS Lord Marnoch	Scotland, Planning
	Link[s] omitted

O'Connor -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another
9 Nov 2000 QBD	Planning
	The authority issued an enforcement notice alleging a breach of planning control through a change of use form agriculture to mixed agriculture and storage of non-agricultural materials. The land owner brought unchallenged evidence that use had continued for more than ten years, and the notice was incorrectly issued. The inspector found the witnesses' evidence unreliable. The appeal succeeded. If the inspector wished to reject unchallenged evidence he must give very clear reasons for doing so.

Regina -v- South Holland District Council appellant ex parte Lincoln Co-Operative Society Ltd [2000] EWHC Admin 419
14 Nov 2000 Admn Smith J	Planning
	Link[s] omitted

Bridle -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions
16 Nov 2000 QBD	Planning
	The landowner had applied for and had been refused change of use from an agricultural building to residential land. He subsequently applied for similar permission in respect of a goat shed. The council failed to determine his application, and the inspector refused it. He alleged a failure to take proper account of the relevant development plan, and that ongoing unauthorised residential use of the property had gone beyond the point at which enforcement could be effected. It was held that the development plan remained in draft only, and enforcement proceedings had begun within the time required and remained extant.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171B

Kingsley -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another
23 Nov 2000 QBD	Planning
	The applicant owned land in the green belt. The local authority set out a structure plan proposing 5,000 homes in the green belt. The applicant sought amendments to increase the number saying there was insufficient urban land. An examination-in-public panel proposed the original number and the local authority confirmed it. The applicant sought a review on the basis that the council did not deal with the fundamentals of the report, and the explanatory memorandum had strayed into making policy. The authority had got to the fundamentals right, but had, indeed, become too detailed in its memorandum and therefore been making policy. Such policy elements were struck out, but the remainder stood.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 287 32 - Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1991

Brent London Borough Council -v- Patel and Another
30 Nov 2000 ChD	Landlord and Tenant, Planning, Housing
	An improvement grant made in respect of a house in multiple occupation, became repayable in whole, where the owner of the freehold took up residence in any part of the property. In applying for the grant the owner certified that part of the property would be available for active to someone not a family member. The certificates were confusing, but the words of the section did not allow the possibility of the landlord occupying any part of the house either himself or through a member of his own family.
	Local Government and Housing Act 1989 122, 106(7)

Fisher -v- Wychavon District Council
30 Nov 2000 CA	Planning, Equity
	A planning permission was given, with several references to it being temporary. Nevertheless no reference was made to the extent in time of the permission. Despite this, an application to remove the references to temporary status and to upgrade it to permanent was refused. There appears to be no power in equity to rectify a unilateral transaction consisting of a notification of a planning consent, even if it might be available for other unilateral acts. The notice was clearly intended to be temporary.

Hambleton District Council -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another
30 Nov 2000 QBD	Planning
	The appellant challenged the decision of a planning inspector considering an enforcement notice with regard to the siting of a residential caravan on land that other suitable accommodation was not available in the area. The only evidence was a site visit. That visit could not support such a finding. A second decision to vary an enforcement notice went beyond the inspectors powers which were limited to considering whether the steps required by the notice were necessary to alleviate the planning breach. He could not consider injury to amenity.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 174(2)

Wainsfort Corporation -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another
7 Dec 2000 QBD	Planning
	The applicant sought permission to erect a boathouse in green belt land. The application was rejected and on appeal, the inspector again rejected the application after considering structure and local plan policies and the PPG2. On appeal, the court held that he was free to consider but distinguish a similar successful application relating to land nearby. It was within his discretion to distinguish the application. The inspector was entitled to find that an "essential" requirement was one requiring a high standard. He was also entitled to reject the contention that the site was rural and that policy GB2 applied. He must still consider the openness of the green belt, which was a very general principle over and above such matters.

Thurrock Borough Council -v- Secretary of State for the Enviroment, Transport & The Regions ex parte Terry Holding [2000] EWCA Civ 323
13 Dec 2000 CA	Planning, Litigation Practice
	Where the claimant was not out of time to bring an appeal, or he retained the right of appeal, or the works proposed involved were not new, and no amendment or substitute of a new claim was proposed, the court should exercise its discretion to amend the claim form so that an application for permission to appeal under section 289, should proceed as an application under section 288.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288 289 - Civil Procedure Rules Part 1.1(1) 1.2 17.4
	Link[s] omitted

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) -v- North Yorkshire County Council [2000] EWCA Civ 324
14 Dec 2000 CA	Planning, Road Traffic	1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Foxlow Ltd -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another
15 Dec 2000 QBD	Planning
	The owner of a listed building removed a chimney stack and replaced it. Compliance with current building regulations would not have been able to serve the five fires served by the old stack. An enforcement notice was issued and confirmed by the inspector requiring the restoration of the initial stack. The council's decision to under-enforce the restoration was acceptable. They owners' appeal to the court was dismissed. The enforcement notice had been clear in what it required, and it had been correctly seen as an exercise in restoration. He was aware of the decision by the authority. He had taken into account everything that he should have, and nothing that he shouldn't.

Mohammed Aslam -v- South Bedfordshire District Council [2000] EWCA Civ 355
21 Dec 2000 CA	Land, Planning	Casemap 1 Cites
	The claimant appealed an award of the Lands Tribunal of compensation for an order discontinuing his use as a slaughterhouse of premises of which he held a long lease. The tribunal had applied a discount for wastage on sheep carcasses of 25%, but had had no evidence to support their conclusion, and the figure proposed had allowed for that factor. A reduced allowance for losses from sale of other parts of sheep could not be supported by the evidence, and was increased, and the tribunal should have awarded interest from the date of the discontinuance order.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 102 - Planning and Compensation Act 1991
	Link[s] omitted

Wiggins -v- Secretary of State for The Environment, Transport and The Regions [2000] EWHC Admin 436
21 Dec 2000 Admn The Hon. Mr Justice Collins	Planning	Casemap 1 Cites
	The claimant sought to appeal an enforcement notice. The land had been used for crushing etc concrete. The council had said it was an unlicensed waste management facility. A temporary permission had been granted subject to an obligation under s106. Held: Permission was obtained for a filetring media plant, but under the subsequent Use Classes Order, both the filtering media and concrete crushing uses fell within Class B2 and so no planning permission was now required for the change from one to the other. The order was not retrospective, but the claimant asserted established use. The rule in Newbury only applied to preserve an existing use where the new planning permission was unnnecessary to the cuttent use. That did not apply here and the appeal was dismissed.
	Town an Country Planning Act 1990 106
	Link[s] omitted