Hill, R (On the Application Of) v Cornwall Council

Hill, R (On the Application Of) v Cornwall Council

The planning committee had sufficient information to make a judgment on the noise impact, including the use of whistles, and was not misled about the Environmental Health Officer’s concerns. The refusal to impose a whistle restriction was rational. However, condition 7 of the planning permission was unintelligible and unenforceable as drafted, warranting a declaration and an adjournment for correction, but not quashing the permission.

Parties
Claimant: Matthew Hill; Defendant: Cornwall Council; Interested Party: Tim Holbrook
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed in part; declaration granted regarding condition 7; planning permission not quashed; adjournment for correction of condition 7.
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Noise Pollution, Judicial Review, Planning Conditions, Environmental Health, Local Authority Decision Making
Administrative Law Planning Law Planning Permission Noise Pollution Judicial Review Planning Conditions Environmental Health Local Authority Decision Making

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Hill

Claimant

Cornwall Council

Defendant

Tim Holbrook

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning committee had sufficient material to address the noise impact of the proposed development
  2. 2 Whether the committee was misled about the concerns of the Environmental Health Officer
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to impose a condition restricting the use of whistles was irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The planning committee had sufficient information to make a judgment on the noise impact, including the use of whistles, and was not misled about the Environmental Health Officer’s concerns. The refusal to impose a whistle restriction was rational. However, condition 7 of the planning permission was unintelligible and unenforceable as drafted, warranting a declaration and an adjournment for correction, but not quashing the permission.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed in part; declaration granted regarding condition 7; planning permission not quashed; adjournment for correction of condition 7.

Orders

  • Declaration that condition 7 is unintelligible and unenforceable as drafted
  • Adjournment for application to amend condition 7 under s.96A TCPA 1990