BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
R V Vale of Glamorgan DC Ex parte David Adams [2000] EWHC Admin 323 (12th April, 2000)
CASE NO: CO/2775/99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWM OFFICE
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
STRAND, LONDON, WC2A 2LL
Friday 12 April 2000
BEFORE:
THE HON MR JUSTICE RICHARDS
Regina
V
Vale of Glamorgan DC
Ex parte David Adams
____________________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
No Council for Respondents
Mr Elvin (instructed be 4 Breams Buildings) for the Applicant
____________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE RICHARDS:
1. The applicant, Mr David Adams, is the tenant farmer of The Darren Farm at
Cowbridge in the Vale of Glamorgan. The farm has been farmed by the family
since 1941. The applicant now runs it in partnership with his sister and
brother under the name of E.T. Adams & Son. His mother used to be a member
of the partnership and used to live in the house at the farm, but she died in
1999. His sister thereupon inherited the mother's share and moved into the
house. The farm itself is a dairy farm and is also used for the purposes of a
livestock haulage business.
2. The freehold owners of the land are the Trustees of the Penllyn Estate. In
the documents before the court there is an allegation that the Trustees have
conducted a vendetta against the Adams family over several years. That,
however, is not something about which I can or should form a judgment. It is
not relevant to the issues before me and the Trustees have chosen not to take
any part in the proceedings.
3. Whatever the background, the fact is that the Trustees applied for planning
permission to permit the conversion and change of use of three barns on the
farm into residential use. The application sought originally to convert the
barns into two dwellings, but it was subsequently amended to seek permission
for conversion into a single dwelling. Planning permission was granted by the
respondent council on 28 May 1999. In reliance on the planning permission the
Trustees have served on the applicant a notice to quit that part of the farm
comprising the three barns pursuant to Case B of Schedule 3 to the Agricultural
Holdings Act 1986.
4. The three barns are essential to the continued use of the farm for the
existing dairy business. They are located at one end of the farmyard and are
used for the purposes of a milking parlour, dairy, calf shed and granary. The
material placed before the council in opposition to the application for
planning permission included evidence that conversion of the barns and their
consequent loss of use for the farm would have a catastrophic effect on the
Adams family, would result in loss of employment for local residents and would
be damaging to the agricultural community in the area.
5. The applicant now challenges by way of judicial review the grant of planning
permission to the Trustees. His main case is that the advice given to members
of the council by their officers was based on a misdirection and left members
with the erroneous impression that they had no option but to grant permission,
rather than drawing the material considerations properly to their attention and
leaving them to form their own judgment as to the weight to be given to those
considerations. There is no dispute that the applicant enjoys a sufficient
interest to bring the application.
Material considerations
6. The material considerations to which the council was required to have regard
in reaching its decision included relevant aspects of national and local
policy. It is common ground that, in order to have regard to policy, the
decision-maker must understand the policy properly (see South Somerset DC v.
Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 2 EGLR 203 at 203k-204d).
The interpretation of a policy, however, is a matter for the decision-maker,
subject to limits of Wednesbury reasonableness (see Virgin Cinema
Properties v. Secretary of State for the Environment [1998] 2 PLR 24 at
27-29).
7. As to national policy, two versions of Planning Guidance (Wales): Planning
Policy ("PGWPP") are relevant to the case. The May 1996 version was in force
when the council first began to consider the application for planning
permission. By the date of the decision it had been replaced by the April 1999
version.
8. Paragraphs 189 and 190 of PGWPP (1996) state:
"Agricultural development
189. An efficient and flexible agricultural industry remains essential. Local
planning authorities should in general adopt a positive approach towards
agricultural development proposals which are designed, or are necessary, to
achieve compliance with new environmental, hygiene or welfare legislation.
Re-use and adaptation of rural buildings
190. When deciding a planning application for the re-use and/or adaptation of
rural buildings local planning authorities should take into account the
potential for redevelopment for a compatible use or for job-related
development. Evidence that a building is not redundant for its present use is
not by itself sufficient grounds for refusing permission for a proposed new use
and proposals for re-use of rural buildings should not be rejected unless there
are specific and convincing planning reasons e.g. on environmental or traffic
grounds that cannot be overcome by conditions. However, local planning
authorities should examine applications for changes to residential use with
particular care. New housing in the open countryside is subject to strict
control, and it may be appropriate to apply similar principles to proposals for
the conversion of existing rural buildings to dwellings. Applications for
conversions of buildings that could only be brought back into use by complete
or substantial reconstruction should be considered as if the application were
for a new building."
9. PGWPP (1999) contains somewhat different provisions concerning the re-use
and adaptation of rural buildings. Paragraph 10.5 reads:
"Re-use and Adaptation of Rural Buildings
10.5.1 The re-use and adaptation of existing rural buildings has an important
role in meeting the needs of rural areas for commercial and industrial
development, as well as for tourism, sport and recreation. Local planning
authorities should adopt a positive approach to the conversion of rural
buildings for business re-use provided that: ....
10.5.2 Residential conversion of buildings which have ceased to be used for
industrial or commercial purposes, including agriculture, can have a minimal
economic impact, and may be detrimental to the fabric and character of historic
buildings, while business conversions generally have a more positive economic
impact on local employment. Local planning authorities should consider the
needs of their areas for business, and residential, conversions. Especially in
areas where the creation of local employment is a priority, they may include
policies in their development plan which do not allow residential re-use unless
either:
(a) the applicant has made every reasonable attempt to secure suitable business
re-use, and the application is supported by a statement of the efforts which
have been made; or
(b) residential conversion is a subordinate part of a scheme for business
re-use. [These considerations are in addition to the criteria in paragraph
10.5.1.] ....
10. Both versions of PGWPP preserve in force Annex D (Re-use and adaptation of
rural buildings) of PPG 7. Paragraph D2 of that annex provides:
"When assessing planning applications for the re-use or adaptation of a rural
building, the primary consideration should be whether the nature and extent of
the new use proposed for the building are acceptable in planning terms. It
should not normally be necessary to consider whether the building is no longer
needed for its present agricultural or other purposes (although in the case of
a tenanted agricultural building, the value in planning terms of the existing
use should be taken into consideration). Evidence that a building is not
redundant for its present use is not by itself sufficient grounds for refusing
permission for a proposed new use ...."
11. The material provisions of local policy are to be found in Policy ENV 7 of
the deposit draft of the Unitary Development Plan. Although not yet adopted,
weight may properly be attached to the draft policies. Policy ENV 7 relates to
small scale rural conversions. The applicant relies not on the terms of the
policy itself, but on two paragraphs of the explanatory text, which read:
"3.4.24 It is preferable that rural buildings be retained for their original
use or are put to a new agricultural use ....
3.4.25 Applications for changes to residential use will be examined with
particular care ...."
12. As paragraph 3.4.27 observes, the policy is more fully explained in
supplementary planning guidance published by the council under the title "The
Conversion of Rural Buildings: A Policy and Design Guide." The text of Annex
D to PPG 7 is included as an annex to the Guide. The text of the Guide lists
the following among the points that will be considered as background to any
proposal (page 7, paragraph (l)):
"Many rural buildings are related to, or adjoin land used for agricultural
activities or other uses which may be incompatible with a proposed conversion.
Favourable consideration will not be given to proposals which may prejudice
existing agricultural activities ...."
13. In addition to those policy strands, it is common ground that the personal
circumstances of an occupier of premises can be taken into account
exceptionally as material considerations. As Lord Scarman put it in
Westminster City Council v. Great Portland Street Estates Plc [1985] AC 661 at ...:
"Personal circumstances of an occupier, personal hardship, the difficulties of
businesses which are of value to the character of a community are not to be
ignored in the administration of planning control. It would be inhuman
pedantry to exclude from the control of our environment the human factor. The
human factor is always present, of course, indirectly as the background to the
consideration of the character of land use. It can, however, and sometimes
should, be given direct effect as an exceptional or special circumstance. But
such circumstances, when they arise, fall to be considered not as a general
rule but as exceptions to a general rule to be met in special cases. If a
planning authority is to give effect to them, a specific case has to be made
and the planning authority must give reasons for accepting it. It follows
that, though the existence of such cases may be mentioned in a plan, this will
only be necessary where it is prudent to emphasise that, notwithstanding the
general policy, exceptions cannot be wholly excluded from consideration in the
administration of planning control."
The council's consideration of the planning application
14. The first report of the chief planning officer to the relevant committee of
the council, the Development Control Sub-Committee, was dated 2 September 1998.
On that occasion the report recommended refusal of the application, but solely
on the grounds of highway safety. The report recorded the result of
consultations and representations, including concerns about the loss of
existing agricultural activity for housing and, more specifically, that the
proposal would result in the loss of the working farm. It also referred to the
strong objections on behalf of the tenant. As to that, it went on to state:
"It will be seen from the letters of objection received on behalf of the tenant
that they raise a number of objections to the scheme. The tenant has indicated
that the proposal will result in the loss of his only working buildings on this
farm and no replacement buildings are proposed. In this context, it is noted
that under Central Government guidance the requirement for buildings to be
redundant was removed a number of years ago. Paragraph 190 of Planning Guidance
Wales (1996) advises that ... 'evidence that a building is not redundant for
its present use is not by itself sufficient grounds for refusing permission for
a proposed new use ...'. Committee's attention is drawn to Appendix B relating
to an appeal decision elsewhere within the Vale where similar objections arose.
Whilst this matter has been given careful consideration, and the circumstances
of the tenant are duly noted, it is considered that a reason for refusal on
this basis could not be sustained."
15. The affidavit of the chief planning officer indicates that, in addition to
the appeal decision included as Appendix B (namely a planning inspector's
decision dated 12 April 1996), regard was had to the decision of the High Court
in Fowler v. Secretary of State for the Environment and North Wiltshire
DC [1993] JPL 365.
16. By 21 October 1998, the date of the second report, the highway problem had
been resolved. In relation to the tenant, the report repeated the paragraph
already quoted from the first report. It went on:
"Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval."
17. The sub-committee resolved to defer the matter to enable a site visit to be
made, with particular regard to the highway issues. This led to the preparation
of a third report, dated 18 November 1998, for the purposes of the next meeting
of the sub-committee. In addition to matters already mentioned, the report
referred to comments received from the local ward member, Councillor Baty, who
did not feel that the full impact of the application on the future operation of
the farm had been fully explored. The paragraph already quoted from the first
report was repeated with a slight variation. The quotation from PGWPP (1996)
was slightly expanded, so as to include the statement that "proposals for the
re-use of rural buildings should not be rejected unless there are specific and
convincing planning reasons, e.g. on environmental or traffic grounds, that
cannot be overcome by conditions". The reference to an appeal decision
elsewhere within the Vale was removed. The last two sentences of the relevant
paragraph read:
"Whilst this matter has been given careful consideration, and the circumstances
of the tenant are duly noted, it is considered that a reason for refusal on
this basis could not be sustained, given the guidance in PG(W)PP. The Head of
Legal and Administration has confirmed this view."
18. Accordingly the proposal was again recommended for approval. Councillor
Baty attended the meeting, however, in order to make representations on behalf
of the applicant. The chief planning officer states in his affidavit that the
senior lawyer attended the meeting and gave legal advice as to the position in
law of the tenant farmer and the weight that could be accorded to his interest.
It was specifically stated that the fact that the barns were in use was a
material consideration, which consideration could be accorded more weight than
had they been redundant. Members declined to accept the legal advice and the
views of the planning officer as contained in the report and requested that the
matter be considered further by officers. They specifically requested that the
chief planning officer write to the Local Government Association and request
their view with regard to the conversion of buildings which were not
redundant.
19. The chief planning officer wrote to the Association on 11 December 1998.
Having outlined the factual background, he stated in his letter:
"I have taken the view that the application should be considered on its
planning merits, and should be assessed against current Council policies and
Government policy generally. I therefore consider that the agricultural
building dispute is primarily a civil matter between the two parties. I have
also taken the view that the loss of the buildings to the holding is not a
material consideration. This is based on advice given in paragraph 190 of
Planning Guidance (Wales): Planning Policy, which states: ... [already
quoted].
However, advice given in Planning Policy Guidance Note No.7 (PPG7), 'the
Countryside and the Rural Economy', states at Anned D, paragraph D2 as follows:
... [already quoted].
This advice, particularly the part included in brackets [i.e. the words
'although in the case of a tenanted agricultural building, the value in
planning terms of the existing use should be taken into consideration'], seems
to suggest that tenanted agricultural buildings should possibly be assessed
differently, but [it] is not clear as to how this should be done. How does one
assess what is the value in planning terms of the existing use?
....
I would therefore be grateful if you could advise me generally whether or not
the view I am taking in this matter is the correct one ...."
20. The advice relayed to the council by the Association, following discussion
of the issue at the Development Control Topic Group meeting of the Planning
Officers Society, was in these terms:
"The Society Members took the view that the planning officer's interpretation
of the relevant Government policy context was correct, although they had some
sympathy with the problems faced by the agricultural tenant. The Society felt
that the matter would have to be addressed by a general review of PPG7."
21. There followed a fourth report to the sub-committee, dated 27 May 1999.
The paragraph already quoted from the first report, concerning PGWPP (1996),
was repeated. There followed a paragraph on PGWPP (1999) and comments on the
advice from the association and on Annex D of PPG 7:
"In April, 1999, the 1996 'Planning Guidance Wales: Planning Policy' was
revised. Paragraph 10.5 of that document therefore provides the most recent
advice on the re-use and adaptation of rural buildings. For ease of reference
for Members, this section of the Guidance is set out in full as Appendix E to
this report. It is noted that the new guidance does not clarify the issue of
the 'redundancy' of the building and the weight to be given to a tenant.
Consideration of the application was deferred originally to allow the Sub
Committee to inspect the site. Following this the application was considered
again at the Sub Committee meeting on the 18th November 1998, at which Members
of the Sub Committee deferred the application again for the following
reasons:
....
2. To write to the Local Government Association to seek its advice on the case,
and in particular the impact on the tenants agricultural activities being a
material planning consideration.
3. To examine Policy advice on the loss of working farm buildings not being
replaced.
As a result of the above, the Sub Committee is advised as follows:
....
2. The following reply has recently been received from the Local Government
Association in response to a letter sent on 11th December 1999: ...[reply
already quoted]
The copy of my letter to the Local Government Association is attached as
Appendix D.
3. With regard to Policy advice the most relevant Central Government advice (in
addition to the revised Policy Guidance Wales referred to above) can be found
in Annex D of PPG7 which states 'it should not normally be necessary to
consider whether the building is no longer needed for its present agricultural
or other purposes (although in the case of a tenanted agricultural building,
the value in planning terms of the existing use should be taken into
consideration). Evidence that a building is not redundant for its present use
is, not by itself sufficient grounds for refusing permission for a proposed new
use.' Although this advice is not clear, it is considered that it is weighted
in favour of the conversion of the building for alternative uses, even if it is
presently used.
It is considered that none of the above requests for additional comments or
information have resulted in any material reasons to change the original
recommendation. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval,
subject to the conditions which are set out below."
22. The chief planning officer explains in his affidavit that he attended at
the meeting of the sub-committee. He describes events at the meeting as
follows:
"I explained to members that there was no planning reason to refuse the
application and that the position of the tenant, though a material
consideration, was not, in the absence of any other objection, sufficient
ground to sustain a refusal of the application. The Chair advised the
Committee that he was reluctant to concede the point but that it appeared that
the Committee had reached the end of the road. A local member agreed and
stated that the matter had to be addressed as one of planning simpl[icit]er,
and that personal sympathy for the tenant should not cloud the judgement of
members. It was therefore moved and seconded that the officers recommendation
to approve the application be accepted, and this was carried without
objection."
Submissions
23. The main case advanced by Mr Elvin for the applicant can be put very
shortly. He submitted that the officers failed to advise the members of the
sub-committee that personal circumstances of an occupier were capable of being
material considerations and failed to advise them properly about the relevant
policies. The result was that the members were misdirected and did not
properly understand the policy framework when reaching their decision. They
felt boxed in by officers' advice and were left with the erroneous impression
that the matters advanced by the applicant could not, as a matter of law,
amount to a sufficient reason for the refusal of planning permission.
24. Mr Elvin sought to underline those submissions by reliance on Article 8 of
the European Convention on Human Rights. He contended that the grant of
planning permission constituted an interference with the right to respect for
the applicant's "home", a broad concept which can extend to a professional
office (Niemietz v. Gerrmany (1992) 16 EHHR 97) and is apt to include
the applicant's farm - even though he does not himself live in the house at the
farm. Mr Elvin accepted that the interference here was "in accordance with the
law" and that there was a legitimate aim, but said that there was a failure to
give proper consideration to all the relevant planning circumstances for the
purpose of determining whether the interference was justified. Prior to the
coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 the decision cannot be
challenged directly on grounds of proportionality (i.e. on the basis that the
gain of one new dwelling was not proportionate to the harm to the home and
livelihood of others). But a decision interfering with a fundamental right
should be scrutinised closely by the court, in accordance with the approach
laid down in R v. Lord Saville, ex parte A [1999] 4 All ER 860.
25. Mr Jones, for the respondent, placed understandable stress on the detailed
history of the case, showing the thought given to it by the council's officers
and by the members of the sub-committee - even down to the exceptional measure
of seeking advice from the Local Government Association. He submitted that the
circumstances of the claimant and the effect of granting planning permission
were plainly taken into consideration. The weight to be given to them was a
matter for the sub-committee, subject to their acting within the bounds of
Wednesbury reasonableness. The decision reached in this case was within
those bounds. Nor was there any misdirection. The advice tendered to the
sub-committee (and supported by the Association) was in accordance with policy
and the law.
26. Mr Jones further submitted that, if Article 8 ECHR had any bearing at all,
it did not advance the applicant's case. He accepted that the decision
resulted in an interference with the applicant's "home" within the meaning of
the article, but contended that the interference was in accordance with the
law, pursued a legitimate aim and complied with the principle of
proportionality. He relied on the decision of the European Court of Human
Rights in Buckley v. United Kingdom [1996] JPL 1018, where it was held
that the planning authorities had not employed disproportionate means to
achieve their legitimate aim; though he accepted that the decision depended on
the particular facts and did not provide a complete answer. In the present
case, he submitted, weight must also be given to the rights of the Trustees who
own the freehold.
Conclusions
27. I am persuaded by Mr Elvin's submissions that members were misdirected and
felt unduly boxed in by officers' advice. A number of strands combine in
support of that conclusion.
28. First, members were not informed that "the personal circumstances of an
occupier, personal hardship and the difficulties of businesses which are of
value to the character of a community" are capable of being material
considerations even if to give effect to them will involve an exception from
general policy (see Westminster City Council v. Great Portland Estates
Plc, above). It would have been for the members to decide whether the
circumstances were sufficiently exceptional or special to justify taking them
into account in that way. On the material before the court, and having regard
to the general approach of the members of the sub-committee, I do not think
that one can exclude the possibility that they would have so regarded them or
that they would have been able to advance proper reasons for so regarding them.
29. Secondly, in this case the circumstances of the applicant and the
objections that he advanced could be taken into account in any event as part of
the policy framework. Annex D to PPG 7 provided in terms that in the case of a
tenanted agricultural building the value in planning terms of the existing use
should be taken into consideration. It seems to me that judgments could
sensibly be made about the value "in planning terms" of the existing use, by
reference on the one hand to the harm to the existing agricultural use and
local employment and, on the other hand, to the need for and advantages of a
single new residential dwelling. The advice to members (reflecting in this
respect the letter to the Association) did less than justice to the relevant
passage when referring to it as "not clear", and misrepresented the effect in
this context of paragraph D2 as a whole in expressing the view that "it is
weighted in favour of the conversion of the building for alternative uses, even
if it is presently used".
30. Thirdly, national and local policy had more to say in favour of retention
for agricultural use and against conversion for residential use than was
allowed for in the advice given to members. Paragraph 10.5 of PGWPP (1999),
although not dealing in terms with the situation that existed in this case,
does indicate a policy preference in favour of business rather than residential
re-use of buildings which have ceased to be used for agricultural purposes;
which should apply a fortiori, as Mr Elvin submitted, to buildings which have
not ceased to be used for agricultural purposes. As regards local policy, the
passages I have quoted from the explanatory text to ENV 7 and the Policy and
Design Guide indicate a clear preference for retention of agricultural
buildings for agricultural use. The policy material also lays stress on the
particular care with which applications for changes to residential use should
be examined. That last point did feature in the advice given to members, but
PGWPP (1999) was dealt with dismissively and the aspects of local policy to
which I have referred were not mentioned at all.
31. In the light of those various matters, the view expressed in the chief
planning officer's letter to the Local Government Association that "the loss of
the buildings to the holding is not a material planning consideration" was in
my judgment a mistaken view. The Association was likewise mistaken in
endorsing that view, as I consider it did by its reply - though it is fair to
observe that the Association did not have the complete policy picture before
it. Although it is said in the chief planning officer's affidavit that the
members of the sub-committee were advised that the position of the tenant was a
material consideration, I find that a little difficult to reconcile with what
is said in the written material before the sub-committee. In any event I am
satisfied that any such oral advice was insufficient to correct the mistaken
view set out in the correspondence with the Association, copies of which were
included in the sub-committee's papers.
32. The affidavit goes on to say that the members were advised that the
position of the tenant, though a material consideration, was "not, in the
absence of any other objection, sufficient ground to sustain a refusal of the
application." The members were effectively being told that the tenant's
position and the loss of the buildings to agricultural use could not amount to
a free-standing planning consideration capable of justifying the refusal of
permission; that there had to be some additional ground of objection such as
the highways objection that had been the basis of the original recommendation
of refusal. In my judgment that was an erroneous approach. It adopted too
narrow a view of the relevant policy framework.
33. I recognise that some, but not all, of the relevant policy material was
quoted in or appended to the reports to the sub-committee and that the members
will have been able to read that material for themselves. In the light of the
way in which the matter was presented to them, however, I am satisfied that
they did not properly understand the policy framework within which their
decision fell to be made or the true extent to which the matters of concern to
them could be taken into account as material considerations. It is evident
that they relied on the erroneous advice given to them. In consequence they
did not give proper consideration to the circumstances of the applicant and his
family and did not properly weigh the various planning considerations engaged
by the application for permission, including the harm to the existing
agricultural use and the need for a new residential dwelling. There is a real
possibility that they would have arrived at a different decision had they done
so.
34. I have considered the planning inspector's decision of 12 April 1996, to
which reference was made in the reports to the sub-committee, and the decision
of the court in Fowler v. Secretary of State for the Environment and North
Wiltshire DC, to which the affidavit refers. Each seems to me to turn on
its own facts, rather than laying down any general principle that could assist
the council in this case.
35. I should stress that, although I have found that the advice given to the
sub-committee was erroneous, it is plain that the matter was considered
throughout in good faith and with considerable care. The council's officers
did not have the benefit of legal submissions of the quality of those made to
the court. Had they done so, their advice would no doubt have been different
and the problem would have been avoided.
36. In view of the conclusion I have reached on the main issue, I can deal very
briefly with the European Convention on Human Rights. Had I otherwise been
against Mr Elvin, I would not have been persuaded to reach a different
conclusion by reference to his submissions on Article 8. In my view the points
he made apply more appropriately to a challenge based on Wednesbury
irrationality than to a challenge based on misdirection. The primary issue in
the present case is one of misdirection. Although Mr Elvin signified a
fall-back Wednesbury challenge, it was not advanced in any detail or
with any cogency. I certainly do not consider the points on Article 8 to be
sufficiently weighty to convert the fall-back Wednesbury challenge into
one of substance on the present facts. I express no view on how Article 8
would bite on the case if the Human Rights Act 1998 were in force, but I would
observe that the decision in Buckley is heavily dependent on the
particular facts of that case and would not offer any great assistance to the
council in terms of principle.
37. In the result, for the reasons I have given, the planning permission will
be quashed. The application for planning permission will fall to be
redetermined by the council in accordance with this judgment.
Ruling on consequential orders (this does not form part of the
judgment)
A draft of this judgment was made available to the parties' legal
representatives, who have helpfully dealt with consequential matters by way of
written submissions and have agreed the position with regard to costs. I
therefore rule as follows:
1. There will be an order of certiorari to quash the grant of planning
permission.
2. The council is to pay the applicant's costs, summarily assessed in the sum
of £16,856.55.
© 2000 Crown Copyright
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/323.html
