Applicant applying for determination of conditions to be attached to old mining planning permission – Extensions of time for determination initially agreed – Respondents determining conditions in substantially different form to those proposed by applicant – Applicant seeking judicial review – Whether agreement to extend time expired – Planning and Compensation Act 1991 Schedule 2 para 2(6)(b) – Application allowed
The applicant owner of Gurney Slade Quarry applied for registration of old mining permissions, granted in 1947, under the Planning Compensation Act 1991, and subsequently applied to the mineral planning authority (MPA) to determine the conditions to which the permissions were subject. Para 2(6)(b) of Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act provided that if the MPA failed to determine the conditions within a three-month period, or any extended period agreed in writing, the conditions proposed by the owner applied. The MPA responded to the application by letter dated 24 November 1993, seeking an extension of time to determine the conditions, to which the applicant agreed. A further exchange of correspondence followed in 1994, resulting in further extensions. At a meeting of the MPA’s environment committee on 1 February 1995, it resolved to defer a decision on the applications until its next meeting. There was no further agreement either orally or in writing after that date. The matter came before the committee on 1 March 1995, when it was resolved that the conditions should be substantially in the form recommended by the MPA. On 8 March 1995 the MPA issued notices of determination, purporting to give effect to their conditions.
The applicant applied for judicial review and sought a declaration that the conditions, as set out in its 1993 application, prevaile, and an order that the respondent enter those conditions on the register. The applicant submitted that by 8 March 1995 any previous extension, agreed in writing, had previously expired. Upon such expiry, there was a deemed determination that the conditions were those set out in the 1993 application. The respondent submitted that either the correspondence of 1994 amounted to an agreement in writing, sufficient to extend time to 8 March 1995, or the applicant was estopped from asserting otherwise.
