Work carried out to site prior to granting of planning permission – Planning permission subsequently granted in 1967 – No further works undertaken – Application in 1996 for certificate that implementation of permission granted in 1967 lawful – Council refusing application – Secretary of State allowing appeal – Council applying for Secretary of State’s decision to be quashed – Application dismissed
On March 23 1967 the applicants, South Gloucestershire County Council, resolved to grant planning permission for three terraced houses and one detached house on the Church Farm site, in the Bristol green belt. Before the Land Commission evidence was given that a foreman had been engaged between March 23 and April 5 1967 to dig a foundation trench for a garage block. The Land Commission concluded that a valid start had been made to the development before April 6 1967 and accordingly it was exempt from betterment levy. On September 26 1967 the council granted planning permission without a condition that the development be begun within a specified period. Subsequently the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 required that planning permission, granted prior to April 1 1969, be implemented by April 1 1974 and, as the 1974 deadline approached, the developers sought assurance from the council that the planning permission had been implemented. The council, by their lack of reply, were taken to have agreed that further planning permission was not required. The second respondent applied to the council in 1996 for a certificate that the carrying out of development authorised under the 1967 permission remained lawful, notwithstanding the time limitations contained in s 65 of the 1968 Act. The council refused the application and the second respondent sucessfully appealed to the Secretary of State. The council applied pursuant to s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the Secretary of State’s decision. It was submitted that the inspector erred in finding: first, that there had been an agreement in 1973 by the council that no further planning permission was required; second, that the operations before the grant of permission had begun the development; and third, that the inspector failed to determine essential issues, one of which was colourability.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. The first issue that the inspector had considered was whether in reality the trench had been dug, and he accepted the evidence regarding the digging of the trench and concluded that such work had been carried out. The relevance of the agreement was no more than confirmatory.
2. It was accepted that the works were permitted retrospectively in September 1967 and, accordingly, once the planning permission had been granted, the digging of the trench was permitted by it. There was nothing to contradict the natural conclusion that the digging of the trench was development to which the planning permission related.
3. The inspector had found that the work had been done to satisfy the Land Commission and had succeeded in its aim. It followed that, as the work had been genuinely started for the purposes of the Land Commission, it must have been so for the purpose of the planning legislation. Therefore, the sole test was whether the work was for the purpose of development to which the planning permission related, and the inspector had resolved that issue correctly and had not needed to determine whether the work was bona fide.
Richard Harwood (instructed by the solicitor to South Gloucestershire County Council) appeared for the applicants; Rabinder Singh (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State fot the Environment, Transport and the Regions; the second respondent, Alvis Brothers Ltd, did not appear and was not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
