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once the permitted use of a building within the planning unit for agricultural purposes  has ceased permanently and been replaced by another use or a combination of uses.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 »

In R (Goesa) Ltd v Eastleigh BC (2022) EWHC 1221 (Admin) Holgate J. sets out the statutory framework in relation to a grant of planning permission as follows:-

Read more »

In R (Vanbrugh Court Residents Association) v London Borough of Lambeth (2022) EWHC 1207 (Admin) a judicial review challenge to a grant of planning permission fails. The permission was for a roof level extension to a four storey block of flats so as to provide sixteen additional residential units and five external lifts. Thornton J. summarises the legal frameworks on material considerations (paras 18-22), overlapping regulatory regimes (para 23), duty of sufficient inquiry (para 24), the Court’s review of Planning Officer Reports (para 25), and interpretation of planning policy (para 26).  A local planning authority is entitled to place reliance on the effective operation of other regulatory regimes, but must assess them sufficiently so as to be able to satisfy itself that the other regulatory regime is capable of regulating the relevant issues. The existence of the other regulatory regime is a material planning consideration, to be weighed in the balance. Thornton J. adds (para 39) that the existence of the building control regime was a material planning consideration, to be weighed in the balance. It was open to the Council to place reliance upon the effective operation of the regime in determining the planning application, provided it satisfied itself that the building control regime was capable of regulating the relevant issues.

London Parks & Gardens Trust v Minister of State (2022) EWHC 829 (Admin) concerns whether there will be “substantial harm” to heritage assets, and consideration of the impact of a proposed development on relevant heritage assets. The “high test” is whether potential harm will be: “substantial”, rather than “less than substantial” for the purposes of the NPPF, that is a serious degree of harm to the asset’s significance. The significance of the historic asset does not have to be “drained away”. The test is “substantial harm”, not any gloss, such as “draining away”.

On (1) effective service of Orders, (2) proceeding in landowners’ absence, and (3) continuing interim injunction, to restrain breach of planning control, see. North Northants Council v Mangan (2022) EWHC 536 (QB).

Was the Council in R (Finch) v Surrey County Council (2022) EWCA Civ 187 required to include in an EIA for a project of crude oil extraction for commercial purposes, an assessment of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the eventual use of the refined products of that oil as fuel?  No, say the majority of the Court of Appeal. Likely environmental effects do not extend beyond environmental effects, both direct and indirect, of the proposed development itself, to include anything which might follow as a consequence of planning permission being granted and implemented for that development.

Read more »

In Wiltshire Council v SoS (2022) EWHC 36 ( Admin ) the Court reiterates the legal principles to be applied by a Court when a decision of a Planning Inspector or other specialist decision-maker is challenged on the basis of alleged misinterpretation of policy.

Read more »