Martin Goodall 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 http://planningmatters.co.uk/blog/20080822.html#e80 The United Kingdom Environmental Law Association (UKELA) may not be a body that is well-known among town planners, but it has a Planning & Sustainable Development Working Party (of which your scribe used to be a member before the pressures of client work made it impossible for him to continue). This working party has been looking at the Planning Bill and has concluded that it may well prove to be unlawful in a number of important respects. UKELA wrote to peers before the House of Lords Second Reading Debate, and at least one member of the House drew attention to these views in that debate. false Martin Goodall 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 http://planningmatters.co.uk/blog/20080822.html#e98 In some cases judgments, like wine, have to be allowed to mature for a time before they can be fully appreciated. The judgment I currently have in mind is the Court of Appeal’s decision in Wychavon DC v. SSCLG [2008] EWCA Civ 692, which on an admittedly superficial first skim through the text seemed to be just another gypsy case. The judgment of Carnwath LJ certainly touches on such issues as Circular 01/06, but a more careful reading also reveals a further analysis of the PPG2 test requiring that where ‘inappropriate’ development is proposed in the green belt, there must be “very special circumstances” to justify the grant of planning permission for that development. false Martin Goodall 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 http://planningmatters.co.uk/blog/20080822.html#e323 I reported an example of a successful challenge to the fixing of a Green Belt boundary in this commentary on 15^th May. I have subsequently come across a case in which the same argument went the other way. This was David Wilson Estates v. Mid-Beds DC [2007] EWHC 266 (Admin). false Martin Goodall 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 http://planningmatters.co.uk/blog/20080822.html#e410 The Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal against the first instance decision in Sumption v. Greenwich LBC (see “The curtilage problem again” – 27^th March 2008). Whilst this did not involve a substantive consideration of the issues, Hughes LJ passed some remarks which appear to depart from one or two of the earlier authorities (such as Sinclair-Lockhart’s Trustees). However, I do not believe that those remarks are of any binding effect, and so we can (and indeed must) consider all of the well-established authorities in considering this question. The actual determination as to the physical extent of the curtilage will always be a matter of fact and degree, and therefore a matter exclusively for the decision-maker, but these decided cases do set out the legal parameters within which such a decision must be reached. false Martin Goodall 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 2008-08-22T12:59:40.103+01:00 http://planningmatters.co.uk/blog/20080822.html#e455 Just a quick note to record the fact that the High Court’s decision on the costs of an application for leave in a judicial review case (see “Costs of judicial review” – 16^th November 2007) was in fact upheld by the Court of Appeal on the day before that item appeared here! There is nothing really to add to the earlier report, although planning lawyers on both sides of the fence will no doubt wish to study the detailed remarks of the Court and the helpful comment added by Richard Harwood to the JPL report of the Court of Appeal decision. false