Markets South West (Holdings) Ltd. v First Secretary of State & Anor

Markets South West (Holdings) Ltd. v First Secretary of State & Anor

The inspector's findings that conditions 2-4 of the 1991 RMA were invalid but severable, that the 1994 Extension permission imposed valid restrictions only on the extension, and that the 1997 Permission (including condition 6) was valid, implemented, and regulated the terms of use for the whole building, were correct in law. The appeal failed as the inspector's reasoning was adequate and no substantial prejudice was shown.

Parties
Applicant: Markets South West (Holdings) Ltd; First Respondent: First Secretary of State; Second Respondent: Restormel Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Planning Permission, Conditions of Use, Appeal Grounds, Implementation of Permission, Validity of Conditions
Planning Law Enforcement Notice Planning Permission Conditions of Use Appeal Grounds Implementation of Permission Validity of Conditions

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

Parties

Markets South West (Holdings) Ltd

Applicant

First Secretary of State

First Respondent

Restormel Borough Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conditions 2-4 of the 1991 RMA were invalid and severable
  2. 2 Whether implementation of the 1994 Extension permission removed pre-existing rights
  3. 3 Validity of conditions 3-5 of the 1994 Extension permission

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector's findings that conditions 2-4 of the 1991 RMA were invalid but severable, that the 1994 Extension permission imposed valid restrictions only on the extension, and that the 1997 Permission (including condition 6) was valid, implemented, and regulated the terms of use for the whole building, were correct in law. The appeal failed as the inspector's reasoning was adequate and no substantial prejudice was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order for costs in favour of the second respondent in the sum of £13,145