Pye v Secretary of State for the Environment and another
Outline planning permission granted subject to standard conditions – Application made under section 73 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for extension of three-year period for submitting detailed plans and particulars in connection with reserved matters – Application refused – Inspector refusing appeal – Whether material changes in policy circumstances to be taken into account – Appeal dismissed
Outline planning permission dated August 11 1992 was granted subject to a number of conditions for land adjoining Linda Cottage, Badgall, Tregeare, Launceston, Cornwall. Condition 2 required detailed plans and particulars in connection with reserved matters to be submitted to the council for approval within three years from the date of planning permission, and condition 4 required that development was to be begun no later than five years from the date of planning permission or two years from final approval of reserved matters, whichever was later.
An application was made on December 24 1996, under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for an extension of the three-year period for submitting detailed plans and particulars in connection with reserved matters as required by condition 2. The council concluded that the effect of granting the permission would be to extend the duration of planning permission for at least another two years. They stated that they were not prepared to extend the previous permission unless it was in accord with current policy and, since development at Badgall was contrary to current policies, the application was to be refused. The applicant appealed. The inspector dismissed the appeal. The applicant applied under section 288 of the 1990 Act for the inspector’s decision to be quashed, submitting that the approach taken in Allied London Property Investment Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1996) 72 P&CR 327 was correct, because there was a distinction between an application for renewal of planning permission and an application under section 73 and, therefore, the acceptability of the development in principle was irrelevant. It was contended that therefore the inspector had wrongly applied para 60 of Circular 11/90. The Secretary of State contended that the approach in R v Londons Docklands Development Corporation, ex parte Frost (1996) 73 P&CR 199 was to be preferred, because section 73 required a decision maker to have regard to the development plan and other material considerations.
Outline planning permission granted subject to standard conditions – Application made under section 73 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for extension of three-year period for submitting detailed plans and particulars in connection with reserved matters – Application refused – Inspector refusing appeal – Whether material changes in policy circumstances to be taken into account – Appeal dismissed Outline planning permission dated August 11 1992 was granted subject to a number of conditions for land adjoining Linda Cottage, Badgall, Tregeare, Launceston, Cornwall. Condition 2 required detailed plans and particulars in connection with reserved matters to be submitted to the council for approval within three years from the date of planning permission, and condition 4 required that development was to be begun no later than five years from the date of planning permission or two years from final approval of reserved matters, whichever was later.
An application was made on December 24 1996, under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for an extension of the three-year period for submitting detailed plans and particulars in connection with reserved matters as required by condition 2. The council concluded that the effect of granting the permission would be to extend the duration of planning permission for at least another two years. They stated that they were not prepared to extend the previous permission unless it was in accord with current policy and, since development at Badgall was contrary to current policies, the application was to be refused. The applicant appealed. The inspector dismissed the appeal. The applicant applied under section 288 of the 1990 Act for the inspector’s decision to be quashed, submitting that the approach taken in Allied London Property Investment Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1996) 72 P&CR 327 was correct, because there was a distinction between an application for renewal of planning permission and an application under section 73 and, therefore, the acceptability of the development in principle was irrelevant. It was contended that therefore the inspector had wrongly applied para 60 of Circular 11/90. The Secretary of State contended that the approach in R v Londons Docklands Development Corporation, ex parte Frost (1996) 73 P&CR 199 was to be preferred, because section 73 required a decision maker to have regard to the development plan and other material considerations.
Held The application was refused.
Where an application was made under section 73 to alter a condition so as to extend the period for submission of reserved matters, at a time when the original planning permission was no longer capable of being implemented by reason of section 93(4), because time for the submission of reserved matters had passed, there was nothing which required the local planning authority to ignore the practical consequences of imposing a different condition, or to base their decision on a hypothesis of comparing the merits of development proceedings at the time of the application with the merits of its having been proceeded with in the past. The decision maker was entitled to apply the policy guidance which applied to an application for renewal of planning permission contained in para 60 of Circular 11/95, and it was to take into account material changes in policy circumstances. Accordingly, the inspector’s approach had been correct. R v London Docklands Development Corporation, ex parte Frost (1996) 73 P&CR 199, applied.
David Mole QC and Richard Guy (instructed by Parnalls, of Launceston) appeared for the appellant; Timothy Straker QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondents, North Cornwall District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
