Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
It was reasonable for local authority to conclude that development would not be completed within a reasonable time
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in a challenge to decision refusing an application to extend the appropriate period of a planning permission, finds that the local authority erred in its interpretation and application of planning legislation, on the grounds that: it was not permissible to construe the relevant section as imposing requirements which are not necessitated by EU law, but it was reasonable for the local authority to conclude that it was not satisfied that the development would be completed within a reasonable time; and the Court refuses relief as the reason for refusal in respect of which the Court has rejected the applicant’s claim would have been dispositive of its application.
Planning and development - judicial review – challenge to the decision refusing application to extend the appropriate period of a planning permission - planning authority must be satisfied that the development the subject of the extension application will be completed in a reasonable time - Section 42(8) limits the circumstances in which an extension can be granted to those where no environmental impact assessment (EIA) or appropriate assessment (AA) would be required in relation to the proposed extension – factual background – whether the Council erred in its interpretation and application of section 42(8) of the 2000 Act – Council interprets the section as precluding an extension whenever an EIA or AA would be required for the entire development the subject of the planning permission - statutory interpretation - legislative history and the requirements of EU law - principles of interpretation – domestic law - requirements of EU law - not permissible to construe section 42(8) as imposing requirements which are not necessitated by EU law – adequacy of reasons - whether the Council erred in its interpretation and application of section 42(1)(a)(i)(IV) of the 2000 Act - Council has interpreted the Clause IV requirement in an unduly restrictive manner – Clause IV requirement - entirely reasonable for the Council to conclude that it was not satisfied that the development would be completed within a reasonable time - consequences of a finding that some but not all of the reasons for refusing a planning application were unlawful – court cannot see anything in the invalid reason which taints the valid reason - reason for refusal in respect of which the court has rejected the applicant’s claim would have been dispositive of its application - once the Council had concluded that it was not satisfied that the development would be completed in a reasonable time, as it was more than entitled to do on the basis of the evidence in this case, it was required to refuse the application to extend – judicial review refused -
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
