Expired planning permission not revived by operation of subsequent statutes — Conditions attached to valid application under para 9 of Schedule 13 to Environment Act 1995 — Whether defendant council entitled to reject application on ground that conditions unsatisfactory — Judicial review — Application in respect of expired planning permission dismissed — Application in respect of extant permission allowed
The claimant owned two sites, each of which had planning consents attached, dating from 1955 and 1961 respectively. By the terms of the 1955 consent, one of the sites was designated for the disposal of colliery rubbish, and was included in the first list of mineral sites, compiled by the defendant council in accordance with Schedule 13 to the Environment Act 1995.
In 2000, the claimant made a valid application, under para 9 of Schedule 13 to the 1995 Act, for determination of the conditions attached to the planning permissions, seeking, inter alia, that the materials deposited on the site be allowed to include builders’ rubble. The defendants rejected the application on the basis that: (i) the planning permissions related to two separate sites; (ii) the 1961 consent had expired in 1971; and (iii) the 1955 consent did not include builders’ rubble.
The claimant brought proceedings for judicial review of the defendants’ decision. He claimed that, since the sites shared a common boundary, they should be treated as one site under para 2 of Schedule 13 to the 1995 Act. He also contended that, with regard to the 1961 consent: (i) Schedule 13 should be read with reference to MPG 14 so that it applied to “any” planning permission, including those that had lapsed or expired; and (ii) in any event, the expired planning permission was “revived” by the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981, as consolidated by Schedule 5 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and para 2 of Schedule 13 to the 1995 Act.
Held: The claim was allowed in part.
1. The application in respect of the 1961 permission was dismissed. MPG 14 held no statutory force, and the 1995 Act had to be construed in the light of the intention behind it. Parliament had not intended that that Act or any other statute could revive lapsed permissions.
2. The 1955 planning permission was still extant under Schedule 5 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 13 to the 1995 Act was expressed in terms that were binding upon the defendants and did not allow them to reject the application. It was irrelevent that the defendants felt that the conditions were inappropriate. Their letter refusing the application was not a request for further information under the provisions of para 9, and the defendants therefore had to be considered as having determined the 1955 planning permission with these conditions. On the facts of the case, the deposit of builders’ rubble could not be said to extend unduly the ambit of the original permission. Moreover, the two sites could be treated as one, and the 1955 permission accordingly extended to both.
The claimant appeared in person; Milwyn Jarman QC (instructed by the solicitor to Caerphilly County Borough Council) appeared for the defendants.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
