PYE (Oxford) Ltd v South Gloucestershire District Council [2001] EWCA Civ 96 (25 January 2001)
Permission to appeal is granted on the ground that if an agreement is entered into by an authority for an improper purpose, such as buying planning permission unconnected to the development, it may be ultra vires and unenforceable.
- Citation
- [2001] EWCA Civ 96
- Parties
- Claimant/applicant: PYE (Oxford) Ltd; Defendant/respondent: South Gloucestershire District Council
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 25 January 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal granted (restricted to main ground argued)
- Legal Topics
- Validity of Planning Agreements, Ultra Vires Agreements, Section 52 Town and Country Planning Act 1971, Planning Obligations, Improper Purpose in Statutory Powers
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
PYE (Oxford) Ltd
Claimant/applicant
South Gloucestershire District Council
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1979 agreement requiring reimbursement for land purchase was valid under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971
- 2 Whether the agreement was ultra vires as an attempt to buy planning permission unconnected to the permitted development
Ratio Decidendi
Permission to appeal is granted on the ground that if an agreement is entered into by an authority for an improper purpose, such as buying planning permission unconnected to the development, it may be ultra vires and unenforceable.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal granted (restricted to main ground argued)
Orders
- Application allowed
- Costs to be costs in the appeal
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment