Planning application in 1949 — Application for details refused in 1989 — Construction of development approved in 1950 — Whether specified operations commenced before April 1 1974 — Whether planning permission expired
In 1949 Vickers-Armstrongs Ltd, the owners of the Brooklands motor-racing track and surrounding land, applied to the second appellants, Surrey County Council, for “approval in principle to an outline development plan for permanent indus” (sic) for part of the land. On April 18 1950 approval was given (referred to as “WAL 326”) to the application subject to detailed plans of the layout of the buildings etc being submitted for approval before development takes place. Otton J accepted (March 26 1990) the contention of the respondents, Oakimber Ltd, that WAL 326 was a planning permission and that it had been implemented by acts of development before April 1 1974 for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, section 43(1) and Schedule 24, para 19(1) (now section 56(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Schedule 3 to the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990). Accordingly, the respondents were entitled to relief against the first appellants, Elmbridge Borough Council, who had refused to consider an application for detailed planning approval made in 1989. Both councils appealed.
Held The appeals were allowed.
1. The true effect of WAL 326 was to grant a permission in principle subject to the requirement that before any development could be carried out a scheme should be submitted and approved, which covered the matters reserved relating to detailed plans of certain features. Accordingly, there was no physical development or substantial change of use relating to WAL 326 which could qualify under para 19(1) of Schedule 24 to the 1971 Act. In the absence of an industrial development certificate WAL 326 could not grant permission to erect buildings.
2. Having regard to para 19(1) of Schedule 24, there was no development which could be implemented otherwise than by obtaining approval in detail and subsequently beginning a development. Development in breach of the condition requiring details in WAL 326 could not be development for the purposes of Schedule 24: see Etheridge v Secretary of State for the Environment (1983) 48 P & CR 35.
Peter Boydell QC, Robert Gray QC and Timothy Straker (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared for the first and second appellants, Elmbridge Borough Council and Surrey County Council; and David Keene QC and Duncan Ouseley (instructed by Lovell White Durrant) appeared for the respondents, Oakimber Ltd.
