Planning in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Save Britain's Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 28 February 1991

    The single indivisible question, in my opinion, which the court must ask itself whenever a planning decision is challenged on the ground of a failure to give reasons is whether the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by the deficiency of the reasons given.

  • Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others
    • House of Lords
    • 19 October 1995

    If there is one principle of planning law more firmly settled than any other, it is that matters of planning judgment are within the exclusive province of the local planning authority or the Secretary of State.

  • Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates Plc
    • House of Lords
    • 31 October 1984

    Personal circumstances of an occupier, personal hardship, the difficulties of businesses which are of value to the character of a community are not to be ignored in the administration of planning control. It would be inhuman pedantry to exclude from the control of our environment the human factor. It can, however, and sometimes should, be given direct effect as an exceptional or special circumstance.

  • Pyx Grainite Company Ltd v Ministry of Housing and Local Government
    • Court of Appeal
    • 07 February 1958

    Although the planning authorities are given very wide powers to impose "such conditions as they think fit", nevertheless the law says that those conditions, to be valid, must fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development. The planning authority are not at liberty to use their powers for an ulterior object, however desirable that object may seem to them to be in the public interest.

  • Lever Finance Ltd v Westminister (City) London Borough Council
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 22 July 1970

    In my opinion a planning permission covers work which is specified in the detailed plans and anyimmaterial variation therein. I do not use the words "de minimis" because that would be misleading. It should not be necessary for the developers to go back to the Planning Committee for every immaterial variation. The permission covers any variation which is not material.

  • Edinburgh Council (City of) v Secretary of State for Scotland
    • House of Lords
    • 16 October 1997

    In the practical application of section 18A it will obviously be necessary for the decision-maker to consider the development plan, identify any provisions in it which are relevant to the question before him and make a proper interpretation of them. His decision will be open to challenge if he fails to have regard to a policy in the development plan which is relevant to the application or fails properly to interpret it.

  • South Bucks District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another
    • House of Lords
    • 01 July 2004

    They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the "principal important controversial issues", disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results
Forms
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT