Tatiana Milne-Skillman, R (on the application of) v Horsham District Council

Tatiana Milne-Skillman, R (on the application of) v Horsham District Council

The Council erred in law by misinterpreting the outline planning permission; Condition 1 required compliance with the referenced plans. The deletion of the plans was a material change and could not lawfully be made under s.96A TCPA. The use of s.96A in these circumstances was unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: Tatiana Milne-Skillman; Defendant: Horsham District Council; Interested Party: Kingswood Village Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Non Material Amendments, Outline Planning Permission, Interpretation of Planning Conditions, Section 96 a Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Planning Law Administrative Law Non Material Amendments Outline Planning Permission Interpretation of Planning Conditions Section 96 a Town and Country Planning Act 1990

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tatiana Milne-Skillman

Claimant

Horsham District Council

Defendant

Kingswood Village Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of plans from Condition 1 of the outline planning permission was a non-material amendment under s.96A TCPA
  2. 2 Whether the Council misinterpreted the outline planning permission in considering Condition 1 did not require compliance with the referenced plans
  3. 3 Whether the Council erred in law in using s.96A to delete the plans

Ratio Decidendi

The Council erred in law by misinterpreting the outline planning permission; Condition 1 required compliance with the referenced plans. The deletion of the plans was a material change and could not lawfully be made under s.96A TCPA. The use of s.96A in these circumstances was unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed

Orders

  • The Council’s decision to amend Condition 1 under s.96A TCPA is quashed.