Glenholme Developments Ltd v The Welsh Ministers & Anor [2013] EWHC 3679 (Admin) (10 December 2013)

Glenholme Developments Ltd v The Welsh Ministers & Anor [2013] EWHC 3679 (Admin) (10 December 2013)

The inspector was entitled to conclude that the 1989 permission was not lawfully implemented due to failure to approve all reserved matters, that the 2005 permission was a new full permission subject to unfulfilled conditions (notably landscaping), and that no lawful implementation of permission for 17 dwellings existed at the date of the LDC application. The inspector correctly applied the Whitley principle and relevant exceptions, and there was no error of law justifying interference by the court.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3679 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Glenholme Developments Limited; First Defendant: The Welsh Ministers; Second Defendant: Pembrokeshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Appeal Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lawful Development Certificates, Outline Planning Permission, Reserved Matters, Section 73 Applications, Time Limits for Implementation, Breach of Planning Conditions, Retrospective Permission
Planning Law Administrative Law Lawful Development Certificates Outline Planning Permission Reserved Matters Section 73 Applications Time Limits for Implementation Breach of Planning Conditions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glenholme Developments Limited

Claimant

The Welsh Ministers

First Defendant

Pembrokeshire County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Appeal Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1989 outline planning permission was lawfully implemented
  2. 2 Whether the 2005 permission or amendment allowed lawful development of 17 dwellings
  3. 3 Whether failure to approve landscaping details rendered development unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled to conclude that the 1989 permission was not lawfully implemented due to failure to approve all reserved matters, that the 2005 permission was a new full permission subject to unfulfilled conditions (notably landscaping), and that no lawful implementation of permission for 17 dwellings existed at the date of the LDC application. The inspector correctly applied the Whitley principle and relevant exceptions, and there was no error of law justifying interference by the court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.