Powergen UK Plc v Leicester City Council sub nom R v Leicester City Council, ex parte Powergen UK Plc

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date2001
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
8 cases
  • R Marc Arie Becker v Hertfordshire County Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 27 July 2018
    ...the previous permission was granted, they shall refuse the application.” 36 In R v Leicester City Council, ex p. Powergen UK Limited (2001) 81 P & CR 5 the Court of Appeal considered section 73 and expressed agreement with an extended passage in the judgment of Sullivan J in Pye v Secretary......
  • Justin Edward Pressland v The Council of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 15 July 2016
    ...their discretion as to what conditions to impose is not constrained by it: see R v Leicester City Councilex p Powergen UK Plc (2001) 81 P&CR 5 per Schiemann LJ at [29]. 52 Finding that an application may be made under section 73 for planning permission for the development of land without co......
  • The Queen (on the Application of Wet Finishing Works Ltd) v Taunton Deane Borough Council Strongvox Homes (Interested Party)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 20 July 2017
    ...73 of the 1990 Act, which will be relevant to both grounds of challenge. 37 In R v Leicester City Council, ex p. Powergen UK Ltd [2001] 81 P & CR 5 the Court of Appeal cited with approval what had been said by Sullivan J (as he then was) in Pye v Secretary of State for the Environment [1998......
  • R Stelio Stefanou v Westminster City Council Cunningham Management Ltd (Interested Party)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 25 April 2017
    ...stated that the elements of the 2011 permission " do not form part of this proposal." WCC's arguments are exactly those rejected in Pye and Powergen. 39 There was an unequivocal Development Plan policy (CM28.1), which the 2016 proposal would breach. The application was accompanied by none o......
  • Request a trial to view additional 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