- [1991] 1 QB 471 at 484e-g.
- [1998] 2 PLR 471 at 2g-3a.
- See ss 284 and 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
- See rr. 17 and 20 of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1992 (SI 1992/2038); rr. 18 and 21 of the Town and Country Planning (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1992 (SI 1992/2039).
- See s. 10(1) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992; North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State [1992] 3 PLR 113, at 119g-120d, per Mann LJ, CA.
- It is unclear whether the relevant action is the grant of planning permission or any resolution to grant it: contrast R v North Somerset District Council ex p. Garnett [1998] Env LR 91 at 109; R v Somerset County Council ex p. Dixon [1998] Env LR 111 at 115.
- R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p. Presvac Engineering Ltd (1992) 4 Admin LR 121, CA; R v Cotswold District Council ex p. Barrington Parish Council (1997) 75 P&CR 515 at 523–524.
- Analogies may also have unexpected aspects: would it really be suggested by analogy, for example, that an applicant who was refused planning permission or only granted it subject to conditions by a local planning authority should have six months in which to apply for judicial review on a point of law given that he may appeal to the Secretary of State on the merits within that period? See s. 78(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; Art. 23 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (SI 1995/419).
- See eg per Simon Brown J in R v Swale Borough Council ex p. RSPB [1991] 1 PLR 6 at 23a; Collins J in R v Bristol City Council ex p. Anderson (unreported) 3 March 1998 (CO/3953/96).
- R v Newbury District Council ex p. Chieveley Parish Council (1998) 10 Admin LR 676, CA.
- Cf per Laws J in R v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex. p Greenpeace Ltd [1998] Env LR 415 at 424–425.
- Cf eg R v Independent Television Commission ex p. TV NI Ltd [1996] JR 60 at 61, CA.
- Cf R v LDDC ex p. Frost (1997) 73 P&CR 199 at 210–212.
- The normal time limits for implementing any planning permission is five years, and any reserved matters need to be submitted within two years, of the grant of planning permission: see ss 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The planning permission may provide that no works or use pursuant to any planning permission may be made until something has occurred over which the application has no control and which has no reasonable prospect of occurring during the life of the permission: see BRB v Secretary of State [1993] 3 PLR 125, HL.
- See R v Swale Borough Council ex p. RSPB [1991] 1 PLR 6 at 20a-c.
- See R v Secretary of State ex p. Walters (1998) 10 Admin LR 265 at 295–296.
- Cf R v South Northamptonshire District Council ex p. Crest Homes plc [1993] 3 PLR 75 at 92; R v Bath City Council ex p. Crombie [1995] COD 283.
- As Laws J found in R v Essex County Council ex p. Tarmac Roadstone Holdings Ltd [1998] 1 PLR 79 at 88–89.
- See R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p. Presvac Engineering Ltd (1991) 4 Admin LR 121 at 134a-b, CA; R v Cotswold District Council ex p. Barrington Parish Council (1997) 75 P&CR 515 at 525.
- R v Stratford upon Avon District Council ex p. Jackson [1985] 1 WLR 1319, CA.
- Cf per Taylor J in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p. Ruddock [1987] 1 WLR 1482 at 1485g; per Simon Brown J in R v Exeter City Council ex p. JL Thomas & Co. Ltd [1991] 1 QB 471 at 484d-e; R v South Northamptonshire District Council ex p. Crest Homes plc [1993] 3 PLR 47 at 51g-52b, CA.
- See per Carnwath J in R v Newbury District Council ex p. Chieveley [1997] JPL 1137 at 1145; per Pill LJ on appeal in that case.
- For example there is nothing to stop a person receiving an enforcement notice requiring compliance with a condition contending that there is no breach of planning control because the condition was invalid (for example if it was unenforceable as it imposed obligations to do something on land outside the applicant's control). If such a contention is well founded, it is difficult to understand why a person must invariably be shut out from challenging the permission which might not have been granted but for that condition even if there is undue delay in making his application and even if some development has occurred in reliance upon it. For in such circumstances, when the local planning authority realises what has occurred, it may require the removal of the development carried out as being in breach of planning control as there was no planning permission having legal effect which authorised it.
- See R v Somerset County Council ex p. Dixon [1998] Env LR 111 at 115.
- Cf the approach adopted in Scotland: In re the Petition of Richard Swan and others [1998] Env LR 545 at 555.
- R v Commissioner for Local Administration ex p. Croydon Borough Council [1989] 1 All ER 1033 at 1046g.
- R v Criminal Injuries Board ex p. A [1997] 3 WLR 776 at 791d, CA.
Judicial Review
Volume 4, 1999 - Issue 1