Entity

Time filter

Source Type

United Kingdom

Fraser-Urquhart A.,Messrs Cumberland Ellis | Yates K.,Treasury Solicitors
Journal of Planning and Environment Law | Year: 2014

The article presents the law case 'Mahfooz Ahmed versus Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Hackney LBC.' The question was whether an appellant, who contended that the enforcement notice imposed requirements that exceeded what was necessary to remedy a breach of planning control, was required to raise the lesser 'fall-back' alternative in the form of an express application for the grant of retrospective planning consent pursuant to section 174 (2)(a) or whether the issue was raised in substance as part of an appeal against excessive enforcement under section 174 (2)(f) of the 1990 Act. The Inspector dismissed the appeal. As regards the submission made under section 174(2)(f) he found that since the enforcement notice was directed to remedying the breach of planning control and not solely to remedying the injury to amenity caused by the breach, and since the 2005 consent had lapsed, he had no power to allow an appeal on the grounds of over enforcement by varying the notice.


Kimblin R.,Treasury Solicitors
Journal of Planning and Environment Law | Year: 2014

The article describes the case law San Vicente and Carden v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Uttlesford DC and Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd. The only surviving ground of appeal was that the Secretary of State's decision was unlawful by reason of procedural unfairness, namely the failure to ensure that all parties were notified of the hearing in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 (SI 2000/1626) and, having discovered a complete absence of notification of concerned residents, his failure to re-start the hearing with a new inspector. Once the mistake had been identified, the question arose as to what should be done as it was obviously necessary that there should be some form of re-hearing. Taylor Wimpey sent an e-mail to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) asking the Inspector to confirm that oral evidence presented by both parties at the original hearing remained part of the evidence on which he would take his decision.


Stinchcombe P.,Photiades Solicitors | Helme N.,Photiades Solicitors | Whale S.,Treasury Solicitors | Reed M.,Legal Democratic and Regulatory Services
Journal of Planning and Environment Law | Year: 2014

The article presents the case Hunston Properties Ltd versus Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and St Albans CC and DC. The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) to quash the decision of an Inspector dismissing its appeal under section 78 of the TCPA against a refusal by St Albans CC and DC to grant planning permission for the construction of 116 dwellings, a 72-bed care home, a new road access, two tennis courts and open space on land in St Albans. There was an emerging strategic local plan being developed by the Council but this had been suspended by a series of resolutions passed by the Council. It was common ground that the emerging strategic local plan carried no weight for the purpose of making planning decisions and that there was a 'policy vacuum'.


Easton J.,LL Barrowcliff Solicitors | Ormondroyd C.,Treasury Solicitors
Journal of Planning and Environment Law | Year: 2014

The article presents the case law Fordent Holdings Ltd v (1) Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and (2) Cheshire West and Chester Council. The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) to quash the decision of an Inspector dismissing an appeal under section 78 of the TCPA against a refusal by Cheshire West and Chester CC to grant planning permission for a change of use for a site located wholly within the Green Belt from agricultural use to use as a caravan and camping site together with the construction of a shop, reception and office buildings and three amenity blocks. The Inspector was required to give substantial weight to the harm that he perceived would be caused to the Green Belt and weigh it against the significant weight attributable to the economic benefits of the proposal.

Discover hidden collaborations