Hulme v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Hulme v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Court held that, when read in context, conditions 20 and 21 impose an obligation on the developer to comply with the amplitude modulation noise limits specified in condition 20 for the duration of the planning permission. This obligation is enforceable by the planning authority. The absence of an explicit enforcement mechanism in the scheme under condition 21 does not render the conditions or the permission invalid, as the obligation arises by necessary implication from the express terms and context of the permission.

Parties
Appellant: Michael William Hulme; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: RES Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Conditions of Planning Permission, Enforcement of Planning Conditions, Noise Regulation, Judicial Review
Planning Law Administrative Law Planning Permission Conditions of Planning Permission Enforcement of Planning Conditions Noise Regulation Judicial Review

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael William Hulme

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

RES Developments Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conditions 20 and 21 attached to the planning permission for a wind farm are enforceable to control amplitude modulation (AM) noise.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of an explicit enforcement mechanism in the conditions renders the planning permission invalid.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, when read in context, conditions 20 and 21 impose an obligation on the developer to comply with the amplitude modulation noise limits specified in condition 20 for the duration of the planning permission. This obligation is enforceable by the planning authority. The absence of an explicit enforcement mechanism in the scheme under condition 21 does not render the conditions or the permission invalid, as the obligation arises by necessary implication from the express terms and context of the permission.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed