Hewitson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another; Shepherd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another
Town and Country planning Development. The claimants, S and H, each applied for planning permission for the erection of a single wind turbine on a farm in Cumbria. The second defendant authority failed to determine S's application and refused H's application, subsequent to which S and H appealed to the first defendant Secretary of State. In dismissing the appeals, the inspector concluded in each case that the adverse impacts of the wind turbine would outweigh the benefits. The claimants applied under s288 of the for orders quashing the decisions of the inspector. In dismissing the applications, the Administrative Court held that the inspector had been entitled to determine S's application on the strength of the written representations made without taking into account what had been said during a site visit about the granting of planning permission by the authority for a smaller wind turbine nearby. It had been open to the parties to have written to her to ask for further information to be taken into account. Further, the reasons provided by the inspector had been entirely adequate to enable each claimant to know why the appeal had not succeeded.
R (on the application of Newhaven Port & Properties Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Commons Registration. The claimant port applied for judicial review of East Sussex County Council's decision to register an area of the claimant's land as a town or village green under s15(4) of the . The judge, inter alia, dismissed the claimant's argument that s15(4) was incompatible with art1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal, holding that the Secretary of State had demonstrated that s15(4) of the Act pursued a legitimate aim and that the means by which it pursued that aim were not manifestly without reasonable foundation.
Costs Order for costs. In proceedings concerning CPR PD 51G, the Costs Management in Mercantile Courts and Technology and Construction Courts pilot scheme, the Technology and Construction Court held that an application to amend a costs management order should not be entertained after judgment had been given in the case. The defendant could not seek, retrospectively, to revise the costs budget under para 6 of the Practice Direction so as to all but double the original costs budget approved in the costs management order.
Limitation of action When time begins to run. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendants for breach of contract and negligence. The master concluded that, although the claim for breach of contract was statute-barred, it was arguable that a concurrent claim in tort was not. The defendants appealed. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the knowledge defence under of the Limitation Act 1980 was not made out and the claimant's claim would be struck out or the defendants would be granted summary judgment.
Town and country planning Appeal to Minister against refusal of permission for development. The claimant parish council appealed against the decision of an inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to grant the third defendant company planning permission for the opencast extraction of coal with restoration of land. The third defendant sought summary judgment, as the challenges were to the planning merits. The Administrative Court, in granting summary judgment, held that the claimant's challenges were to the inspector's planning judgment and that it would not be able to surmount the hurdle it faced in order to challenge it.
Town and Country Planning Planning permission. The third defendant developer had an application for planning permission for the construction of a wind farm refused by the second defendant local authority. An inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State allowed the third defendant's appeal and granted planning permission. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant local resident's application for judicial review as, inter alia, the inspector had not erred in the manner in which he had dealt with the harm to the nearby area of outstanding natural beauty that the proposed development would cause.
Town and country planning Permission for development. The defendant local authority granted the interested parties planning permission for a wind turbine. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that: (i) a planning officer was entitled to advise the authority on what constituted material considerations; (ii) undertakings given by the interested parties as to noise levels were valid and enforceable; and (iii) a senior planning officer had carried out the requisite analysis in determining that an environmental impact assessment was not required.
Building contract Breach. The Technology and Construction Court considered a dispute regarding a planning application for waste recycling on a site. The claimant company contended that, as a result of the defendant company's negligence, it was unable to sell the site for the amount which it had sought. The defendant counterclaimed. The court held that, among other things, owing to the conditions of the contract between the parties, the claimant would be time-barred from bringing the claim. The counterclaim would be allowed in part.
Town and country planning Permission for development. The defendant planning authority declined, under of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to determine the claimant's application for planning permission, on the basis that it was the same or substantially the same as a prior application. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority had not asked itself and answered the right questions in accordance with a circular when making its decision.
Town and country planning Development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that a planning inspector had not erred in finding that the failure of the second defendant local planning authority to carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers residing in its district, and to prepare a strategy in respect of the meeting of that need, had not outweighed the other material considerations going against a further temporary permission on Green Belt land.