Only Treaties which have been incorporated into domestic law give rise to legally enforceable rights. The 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement has not been incorporated into domestic law. The Court of Appeal in R (Friends of the Earth) v Secretaries of State (2023) EWCA 14 holds that it was a tenable interpretation of the Treaty that approval of an investment in a liquefied natural gas project was aligned with the UK’s obligations under the Treaty. On the basis that questions of interpretation of an unincorporated Treaty are for the Executive to determine, the Court holds that a decision-maker cannot be challenged when they adopt a tenable view on a point of unincorporated international law.

In TALLINGTON LAKES LTD v SOUTH KESTEVEN DISTRICT COUNCIL (2022) UKUT 334 (LC) the Tribunal addresses the concepts of “occupier” and “relevant protected site” under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The appellant, the freeholder of the site, was found to be the occupier and the correct licence holder. The appellant’s argument that it was the management company which operated the caravan park that was the occupier failed. An occupier had to occupy the land by virtue of an estate or interest therein. That meant an equitable estate or interest. That did not encompass a licensee or the manager under a management contract. Where the licence and planning permissions allowed mixed use that included residential the site was a relevant protected site.

Regulation 65(1) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 sets a time limit within which levy liability notices have to be issued. Revised liability notices then can by Regulation 65(5) be granted at any time. Regulation 65(8) provides that on the issuing of subsequent liability notices any earlier notice “ ceases to have effect “. The Court of Appeal holds in R ( Braithwaite etc Properties ) v East Suffolk Council (2022) EWCA Civ 1716 that the issuing of a revised liability notice does NOT operate retrospectively to nullify the legal effect of an earlier liability notice. It cannot be treated automatically as having been a nullity and of no effect from the outset. Legal consequences follow. The point at which the earlier liability notice ceases to have effect is when the authority issues another liability notice in respect of the same chargeable development.

This is an illustration and application of the principle that a decision issued by a public authority is legally valid unless and until quashed. Those affected by decisions made by statutory authorities exercising their statutory functions are not generally entitled to disregard the legal consequences of such decisions on account of the decision-making procedure having allegedly been unlawful They must challenge them by appropriate means. This includes, where appropriate, by a timely claim for judicial review.

A liability notice is extant unless and until superseded by a revised liability notice or quashed by a Court.

Is it lawful for a planning authority, in granting a planning permission for a development, to impose a planning condition that the developer will dedicate land within the development site to be a public highway? Answer: it would be unlawful. So reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in DB Symmetry Ltd v Swindon Borough Council (2022) UKSC 33.

R ( Arthur ) v BARNET LBS ( “)”” ) EWHC 2933 ( Admin ) holds that Section 92 ( 3 ) of TCPA 1990 inserts a time limit condition on commencement of development into a planning permission that lacks any such condition.

It does not enable the remedy of a time limit consultation that is unlawful.

Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, read together with Regulations, imposes a duty on the Home Secretary to provide “ support” for asylum seekers who appear to her to be, or to be likely to become destitute. Someone who does not have adequate accommodation is destitute. Support includes accommodation. Under Section 98 she is under a duty to provide temporary support in the form of accommodation to an asylum seeker, as defined, who appears to be destitute, until a Section 98 decision is taken.

Cases brought by Ipswich Borough Council and East Riding of Yorkshire Council (2022) EWHC 2868 (KB) concerned the lawful planning use  Hotels for which the Councils were local planning authority.  The Councils sought to take planning enforcement action. This was on the basis that use to accommodate asylum seekers would involve the use of the buildings as a  hostel, rather than a hotel, and thereby a material change of use without planning permission and  a breach of planning control. However, Holgate J refused the Councils injunctions under Section 187B of TCPA 1990. Read more »

The Appeal to the Supreme Court in HILLSIDE PARKS LTD v SNOWDONIA NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY (2022) UKSC 30 raised issues of importance in planning law about the relationship between successive grants of planning permission for development of the same land. In particular, it concerned the effect of implementing one planning permission on implementing another planning permission relating to the same site. The case was concerned with operational development rather than change of use.

The Supreme Court made from para 19 observations on planning control and planning permissions, the duration of the latter, and the fundamental feature that a planning permission runs with the land. From para 22 the Court considered powers to vary a planning permission; at paras 26/27 the objective interpretation of a planning permission and what documents are significant in that connection, and from para 28 the position in relation to inconsistent planning permissions, and the leading case of PILKINGTON. Read more »

The exemption from the normal processes of development control for permitted development is held in R (Hayes) v Stroud DC (2022) EWHC 2661 (Admin) no longer to apply once the permitted use of a building within the planning unit for agricultural purposes  has ceased permanently and been replaced by another use or a combination of uses.

Gardiner v Hertsmere Borough Council (2022) EWCA Civ 1162 raises a question of statutory interpretation about the exemption from liability for “self-build” housing development under Regs 54A and 54B of the CIL Regs. The question is whether that exemption is available when planning per is granted retrospectively for such development. The answer is that it is not.

The statutory framework for access to information at principal local authority meetings, including when the public may be excluded, as in Stride v Wiltshire Council (2022) EWHC 1476 (Admin), is set out in the Local Government Act 1972. Section 101A provides for such a meeting to be open to the public unless excluded by Resolution.

Read more »