The Court of Appeal has reviewed the law on overlapping planning permissions and reached a judgment, the practical effect being that it will limit the extent to which developers can rely on multiple permissions relating to the same site.
In a judgment handed down last month, the Court of Appeal found a “gaping hole” in an examiner’s report due to its failure to explain the departure of a Somerset village’s neighbourhood plan policy from national green belt policy. The policy, which restricted development on local green space (LGS), was struck down as unlawful.
This question was posed to me recently and the enquirer was very surprised to learn that, yes, local authorities, or indeed the secretary of state, can grant themselves planning permission. Such entities are used to acting in different capacities, wearing their different "hats" when making decisions.
A recent Court of Appeal judgment on a case involving a local authority's handling of proposals for a new school in Suffolk is fascinating, for three reasons.
Last month, the High Court granted Norfolk Homes a declaration confirming that planning permission granted for a development of up to 85 homes in the village of Holt was not bound by a section 106 agreement requiring affordable provision. How did the developers escape this obligation?
Proposals for residential development outside established settlement limits have been at the heart of dozens of appeals and many a higher court judgment since the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) first saw the light of day in 2012. A recent Court of Appeal judgment on a case from North Yorkshire carries on this trend.
A long-running case recently concluded in the Supreme Court answers two important questions relating to listed buildings. First, can an appeal inspector consider whether something on the statutory list is a “building” and hence capable of being listed at all? Second, what test should be applied if so?
On 21 May this year, housing secretary Robert Jenrick accepted that his decision of 14 January granting planning permission for redevelopment of the Westferry Printworks site on the Isle of Dogs was unlawful because of the appearance of bias.