An article published in the
The question of whether development is undertaken “by or on behalf or the Crown” was recently discussed in R (on the application of Cherwell District Council) v First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 16 EG 111. In this case, a contractor was granted a lease of Crown land to undertake the development of an accommodation centre for asylum seekers. The local authority submitted that: (a) the development was to be carried out by a private person (that is, the contractor under the lease); (b) planning permission would therefore be required in the normal way; and (c) the non-statutory consultation procedure set out in Circular 18/84 was inappropriate. The court said, however, that; (a) because the accommodation centre would be constructed and operated for the purposes of the Home Office, there was no doubt that the development would be carried out by on or on behalf of the Crown; (b) planning permission would not therefore be required; and (c) the Circular 18/84 route was correct. This case is helpful because the question as to whether development is carried out by or on behalf of the Crown has long caused confusion. PFI/PPP projects add to this confusion: on such projects, as a precaution, the Circular 18/84 route has sometimes been twin-tracked with the usual planning application process.
The position of the Crown will soon change under provisions contained in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. If this is enacted in its present form, the Crown will be bound by planning legislation as though it were a private developer.
Related items:
An article published in the Estates Gazette on 31 January 2004 examined the position of the Crown in relation to planning law. At present, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 does not bind the Crown and, where development is undertaken by or on its behalf, the Crown is required to carry out the informal consultation procedure set out in Circular 18/84.
The question of whether development is undertaken “by or on behalf or the Crown” was recently discussed in R (on the application of Cherwell District Council) v First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 16 EG 111. In this case, a contractor was granted a lease of Crown land to undertake the development of an accommodation centre for asylum seekers. The local authority submitted that: (a) the development was to be carried out by a private person (that is, the contractor under the lease); (b) planning permission would therefore be required in the normal way; and (c) the non-statutory consultation procedure set out in Circular 18/84 was inappropriate. The court said, however, that; (a) because the accommodation centre would be constructed and operated for the purposes of the Home Office, there was no doubt that the development would be carried out by on or on behalf of the Crown; (b) planning permission would not therefore be required; and (c) the Circular 18/84 route was correct. This case is helpful because the question as to whether development is carried out by or on behalf of the Crown has long caused confusion. PFI/PPP projects add to this confusion: on such projects, as a precaution, the Circular 18/84 route has sometimes been twin-tracked with the usual planning application process.
The position of the Crown will soon change under provisions contained in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. If this is enacted in its present form, the Crown will be bound by planning legislation as though it were a private developer.
Related items:
For Crown and country Estates Gazette 31 January 2004, p141 (Gill Castorina).
Take control of the Crown Estates Gazette 8 March 2003, p160 (Gill Castorina).
