The company appellant, E, wished to develop its land. The Council had declared it to be a conservation area. E said that they had not given the necessary notice of the meeting of the sub-committee at which the initial decision had been made. E appealed against a finding that due notice had been given.
Held: E’s appeal failed. The reference to ‘three clear days’ in the statute referred to working days only. Of the days to be counted, the 1st May had been a public holiday. The notice was not therefore as required, and the meeting was procedurally defective and ineffective in law. However the later decision of the full committee was the effective decision, and achieved that which the sub-committee had failed to achieve.
The chalets sought to be replaced were structures or erections, and therefore buildings within planning law.
Judges:
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Staughton LJ, Mann LJ
Citations:
[1993] 46 EG 181
Statutes:
Local Government Act 1972 100B
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – The King v The Justices of Herefordshire 9-May-1820
By 49 G 3, c 68, s 5, ten clear days’ notice of the intention to appeal is required.
Held, that the ten days are to be taken exclusively, both of the day of serving the notice and the day of holding the sessions.
One Joseph Stinton, having . .
Appeal From – Regina v Swansea City Council, ex parte Elitestone Ltd QBD 1993
On 1 May a sub-committee held a meeting at which land was declared to be a conservation area. Under the Act, the agenda had been open for inspection for three clear days. They were available from April 26, and there was no suggestion that they had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government, Planning
Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.449987
