F G Whitley and Sons Company Ltd v Secretary of State for Wales and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 March 1992 |
| Date | 24 March 1992 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Parker, Lord Justice Woolf and Lord Justice Croom-Johnson
Planning - permission - conditions requiring approval - survives delay
Where a developer had been granted planning permission to carry out mining operations, subject to fulfilling certain conditions which required the approval of the local planning authority, if his application for approval, made in time, was delayed by the planning authority and operations were commenced before the planning permission expired, the developer did not lose the benefit of the planning permission even though approval was obtained after permssion had expired.
The Court of Appeal so stated when dismissing an appeal by the planning authority, Clwyd County Council, from the judgment of Sir Frank Layfield, QC, who, sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench Division on October 18, 1989, had allowed the appeal of the developer, F G Whitley and Sons Co Ltd, against the decision of the Secretary of State for Wales dated October 26, 1988 dismissing the developer's appeal against an enforcement notice served by Clwyd.
On November 15, 1973 the developer's predecessors in title were granted planning permission for the extraction of minerals from a site in Clwyd which was subject to 11 conditions. Conditions 2, 3 and 4 required that certain matters should be done in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the local planning authority or, failing agreement, to be determined by the secretary of state before operations started.
In May 1976 the developer purchased the site paying a price which reflected the value of the planning permission. In July 1977 the developer applied for approval of the matters referred to in conditions 2, 3 and 4.
On October 26, 1978 the planning authority decided not to approve the developer's proposals and on November 2, 1978 the developer applied to the minister for his approval but because it was impractical for the minister to give a decision in the time available the developer commenced operations on November 28, 1978 and working on the site went on until December 8, 1978.
The planning authority did not take any enforcement action on that development which therefore became immune from enforcement after four years by virtue of section 87(4) of the 1971 Act. Although the November 30, 1978 deadline had passed the developer continued to press the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Rastrum Ltd) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government and Another
...as having begun the development within the time limit prescribed by the permission had been carried out before the necessary approvals ( Whitley) or the laying out of the exchange land as an open space in compliance with a condition ( Hammerton), but if those works could nevertheless be tre......
-
Greyfort Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another
...the development authorised by the permission. That decision turned on the application of what, in planning parlance, is commonly called the Whitley principle (see Whitley & Sons v Secretary of State for Wales (1992) 64 P&CR 296), in relation to which Sullivan J (as he then was) made extensi......
-
Greyfort Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government
...such as restoration after extraction or, for example, a detail of the external finish of the flats such as facing materials. On the basis of Whitley, specified operations contravene condition (4) and so cannot commence the development authorised by the 1974 permission ….. At Park Hall the c......
-
The Queen (on the Application of Benjamin Cameron Howell) v Waveney District Council
... ... He was unsuccessful: Howell v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government ... permission, what has been termed the Whitley principle means that they cannot be properly ... are unauthorised and unlawful: Whitley & Sons Co Ltd v Secretary of State for Wales (1992) 64 ... it used one form of words rather than another: [32] ... 39 There ... ...