Mount Cook Land Ltd & Anor v Westminster City Council

Mount Cook Land Ltd & Anor v Westminster City Council

Alternative proposals are only material considerations in planning decisions if there is a real possibility of their implementation. In this case, Mount Cook's proposals were too vague and had no prospect of being implemented without Redevco's consent, which was not forthcoming. The Council was entitled to disregard them and consider Redevco's application on its own merits. The grant of permission for operational development could not be refused on the basis that it might prejudice future planning control of change of use. The award of costs against Mount Cook was justified due to the hopelessness of the claim, the resources deployed, and the effective full hearing at the permission stage.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Mount Cook Land Limited; Respondent: Westminster City Council; Interested Party: Mount Eden Land Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Appeal From Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review; Substantive Determination by Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; claim for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, Costs in Judicial Review, Alternative Proposals in Planning Applications, Discretionary Refusal of Relief
Administrative Law Planning Law Civil Procedure Material Considerations in Planning Decisions Costs in Judicial Review Alternative Proposals in Planning Applications Discretionary Refusal of Relief

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mount Cook Land Limited

Applicant/appellant

Westminster City Council

Respondent

Mount Eden Land Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Appeal From Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review; Substantive Determination by Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a planning authority must consider alternative, preferable proposals when determining a planning application
  2. 2 Whether grant of permission for operational development can be refused because it may prejudice future planning control of non-conforming change of use
  3. 3 Whether the court should refuse relief in its discretion if the claimant's motive is collateral

Ratio Decidendi

Alternative proposals are only material considerations in planning decisions if there is a real possibility of their implementation. In this case, Mount Cook's proposals were too vague and had no prospect of being implemented without Redevco's consent, which was not forthcoming. The Council was entitled to disregard them and consider Redevco's application on its own merits. The grant of permission for operational development could not be refused on the basis that it might prejudice future planning control of change of use. The award of costs against Mount Cook was justified due to the hopelessness of the claim, the resources deployed, and the effective full hearing at the permission stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; claim for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Mount Cook to pay Westminster City Council's costs of the application, summarily assessed at £11,508.13