PLANNING CASE LAW UPDATE

1. PLANNING CASE LAW UPDATE Anthony Gill November 2011

2. Beesley’s Barn

3. IMMUNITY FROM ENFORCEMENT SoSCLG v. Welwyn Hatfield BC • immunity for the unlawful new-build dwelling • deception & the public policy argument.

4. R (on the application of Fidler) v SoS CLG [2011] EWCA Civ 1159

5. The Whitley Principle Greyfort Properties Ltd v. SoSCLG “Before any work is commenced on the site the ground floor levels of the building hereby permitted shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing.”

6. Hart Aggregates affirmed “There is...no material difference between a condition which expressly prohibits development before a particular matter is approved and one which requires a particular matter to be approved before development commences. The effect is the same.”

7. Reasons for the Grant of Consent R (oao Telford Trustees) v. Telford & Wrekin Council “...the statutory requirement is to give a summary of the reasons for the grant of planning permission, not a summary of the reasons for rejecting an objector’s representations...”.

8. An Adequate Reason “The proposed retail store has been fully considered and assessed to be in accordance with guidance in PPS4...”

10. Garner v. Elmbridge BC “The application has been considered against all the relevant national and local policies as well as the representations and consultation replies, and in all the circumstances it is concluded that on balance there are insufficient overriding reasons to refuse planning permission in the public interest”.

11. “...summary reasons should not be construed in isolation. They summarise the outcome of what in the present case was a lengthy planning process: see Siraj v Kirklees Metropolitan District Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1286 . The context in which the summary reasons are prepared is important and an important part of the context in the present case is that the members were accepting a planning officer's recommendation to grant planning permission.”

12. An Enforcement Inspector’s Jurisdiction Britannia Assets (UK) Ltd v. SoSCLG • Jurisdiction to consider nullity of notice • No jurisdiction to consider expediency.

13. Abandonment & Temporary Consents Bramall v. SoSCLG “ s.57(2) Where planning permission to develop land has been granted for a limited period, planning permission is not required for the resumption, at the end of that period, of its use for the purpose for which it was normally used before the permission was granted ”

14. “...if there is any significant length of time between the expiry of the time during which the alternative use was authorised and the resumption of the previous normal use it may well be that...the right to resume may be lost.”

15. Another Temporary Consent Case Avon Estates Ltd. v. Welsh Ministers “ ...I do regard it as very unlikely that the statutory scheme allows for what can be described as a permanent condition on a temporary permission, other than the time limit condition itself.”

16. THE HABITATS REGULATIONS Morge v. Hampshire County Council “I cannot see why a planning permission...should not ordinarily be granted save only in cases where the planning committee conclude that the proposed development would both (a) be likely to offend article 12(1) and (b) be unlikely to be licensed pursuant to the derogation powers.”

17. DEMOLITION R (oao Save Britain’s Heritage) v. SoSCLG • Demolition can be a project falling within the EIA Directive, and, • The Demolition Direction 1995 is unlawful.