R v Slough Magistrates' Court ex parte Lindsay
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 1995 |
| Date | 19 May 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Morritt and Lord Justice Ward
Planning - construction of permission - floor area not specified in outline
A developer who bought land from a local authority with the benefit of outline planning permission granted on an application specifying the area, but which area was not actually mentioned in the grant of planning permission, was not limited to that area and an increase of floor area by 45 per cent could not be said to be outside the terms of the outline permission.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment in dismissing an appeal brought by Slough Borough Council against the dismissal by Mr Justice Schiemann on March 25, 1994 of an application for judicial review by the local authority of the decision of an inspector that the proposal in terms of floor area did not fall outside the terms of the outline planning permission and that the appeal should be heard on its merits with regard to local planning policies.
Mr Brian Ash, QC and Mr Paul Stinchcombe for the local authority; Mr Rabinder Singh for the secretary of state.
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH, delivering the judgment of the court, said that the local authority invited the court to resolve an important, but controversial point of planning practice, namely, the extent to which it was permissible to have regard to the application in order to construe the scope of the planning permission which was granted.
The old petrol station site in Hershal Street, Slough, was vested in the local authority. It was considered ripe for development but the local authority did not want to carry out any development itself and preferred to sell the land with the benefit of planning permission which was granted for a change of use, redevelopment and the erection of new buildings with a proposed additional floor space being 1,055 square metres.
The site was then sold to Mr Oury. He applied for planning permission making reference to the outline permission but stating that the proposed additional floor space to be created was 1,530 square metres. The local authority was not prepared to approve a development which increased the floor area by 45 per cent and Mr Oury appealed.
The secretary of state appointed an inspector who found, as a preliminary issue, that the application...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnett v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
... ... Case No: C1/2008/1975&1976 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ... permission, as summarised in R v Ashford BC ex parte Shepway DC [1999] PLCR 12 , a decision of mine as a High ... in support of the principles there summarised, Slough BC v the Secretary of State [1995] JPL 1128 was concerned ... ...
-
R (Bleaklow Industries Ltd) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
... ... [2009] EWCA Civ 206 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ... Ashford Borough Council, ex parte Shepway District Council [1999] P.L.C.R. 12, at 19 C/D ... the Ashford case and in other authorities such as Slough Borough Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment ... ...
-
R v Cardiff Magistrates, ex parte Czech
...Court, ex p Sullivan[1992] 1 FCR 475. R v Poole Justices, ex p Benham [1991] 4 Admin LR 161. R v Slough Magistrates’ Court, ex p Lindsay[1997] 2 FCR 636. Woodley v Woodley[1993] 1 FCR 701, Application for judicial reviewThe applicant sought judicial review of a decision of magistrates to co......
- R (Lambeth London Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions