Morland, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

Morland, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

The Inspector was not wrong in law in refusing to consider the enforceability of Condition 3 due to the lapse of time or the Handoll principle in the context of a s.73A application. The Inspector was correct to treat the application as a conventional planning application and to focus on the appropriateness of the condition, not its enforceability due to time limits. The application was misconceived and must be dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Simon Brockbank Morland; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: North Cornwall District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Enforcement of Planning Conditions, Retrospective Planning Applications, Judicial Review, Interpretation of Planning Statutes
Administrative Law Planning Law Planning Permission Enforcement of Planning Conditions Retrospective Planning Applications Judicial Review Interpretation of Planning Statutes

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Brockbank Morland

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

North Cornwall District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by not considering the enforceability of Condition 3 in light of the Handoll principle
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector was obliged to consider the inability of the authority to enforce the condition due to lapse of time
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's approach to the s.73A application was legally correct

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was not wrong in law in refusing to consider the enforceability of Condition 3 due to the lapse of time or the Handoll principle in the context of a s.73A application. The Inspector was correct to treat the application as a conventional planning application and to focus on the appropriateness of the condition, not its enforceability due to time limits. The application was misconceived and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application under s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed
  • Claimant to pay First Defendant's costs, provisionally assessed at £4,000