Murray, R (on the application of) v Hampshire County Council [2003] EWCA Civ 760 (14 May 2003)

Murray, R (on the application of) v Hampshire County Council [2003] EWCA Civ 760 (14 May 2003)

The planning authority was entitled to approve details for mitigation land at site 7 without further comparative assessment of other sites, as the planning condition did not impose a hierarchy or require such comparison. The submission of details was not out of time, as the condition did not relate to reserved matters under Section 92, but was subject only to the five-year limit under Section 91.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 760
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Elspeth Murray; Defendant/appellant: Hampshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission Conditions, Judicial Review, Public Law Costs, Mitigation Measures, Time Limits for Planning Applications
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Planning Permission Conditions Judicial Review Public Law Costs Mitigation Measures Time Limits for Planning Applications

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elspeth Murray

Claimant/respondent

Hampshire County Council

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning authority lawfully considered material factors in approving mitigation land under a planning condition for a park and ride development.
  2. 2 Whether the submission of details for mitigation land was out of time under Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Ratio Decidendi

The planning authority was entitled to approve details for mitigation land at site 7 without further comparative assessment of other sites, as the planning condition did not impose a hierarchy or require such comparison. The submission of details was not out of time, as the condition did not relate to reserved matters under Section 92, but was subject only to the five-year limit under Section 91.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order quashing the High Court's decision; the planning authority's approvals of July 2001 and May 2002 reinstated.
  • Judgments to be sent to the Legal Services Commission and the costs judge for consideration of public funding and costs from 6 March 2003 onwards.