R v First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Cherwell DC
R v First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Cherwell DC
- 2004
[2004] EWCA Civ 1420, 28 October 2004. Appeal by local planning authority C against HC decision ([2004] EWHC 724 (Admin), Abs67754) which upheld the First SoS decision to give approval for a development by the Home Office for an accommodation centre for asylum seekers in a rural location in Oxfordshire. The appeal raises points relating to the use of non-statutory procedure introduced by DoE Circular 18/84 in connection with public/private partnership development projects. The grounds for appeal, as set out in Paragraph 34, raise issues of whether the proposed development was by or on behalf of the Crown.And as such, if it was an abuse of power for the Home Office to use the non-statutory consultation procedure (prescribed in Part IV of the memorandum accompanying DoE Circular 18/84 known as the NPD procedure) rather than applying for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s299. "Held": that the development being carried out by a DBO contractor was a development by or on behalf of the Crown and that it was not an abuse of power for the Home Office to use the NPD procedure rather than apply for planning permission under s299 of the 1990 Act. Appeal dismissed. View judgment at www.bailii.org.
CROWN IMMUNITY
DESIGN BUILD AND OPERATE
ASYLUM SEEKERS
R V FIRST SOS AND ANOTHER EX P CHERWELL DC
PLANNING PERMISSION
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S299
DOE CIRCULAR 18/84
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
[2004] EWCA Civ 1420, 28 October 2004. Appeal by local planning authority C against HC decision ([2004] EWHC 724 (Admin), Abs67754) which upheld the First SoS decision to give approval for a development by the Home Office for an accommodation centre for asylum seekers in a rural location in Oxfordshire. The appeal raises points relating to the use of non-statutory procedure introduced by DoE Circular 18/84 in connection with public/private partnership development projects. The grounds for appeal, as set out in Paragraph 34, raise issues of whether the proposed development was by or on behalf of the Crown.And as such, if it was an abuse of power for the Home Office to use the non-statutory consultation procedure (prescribed in Part IV of the memorandum accompanying DoE Circular 18/84 known as the NPD procedure) rather than applying for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s299. "Held": that the development being carried out by a DBO contractor was a development by or on behalf of the Crown and that it was not an abuse of power for the Home Office to use the NPD procedure rather than apply for planning permission under s299 of the 1990 Act. Appeal dismissed. View judgment at www.bailii.org.
CROWN IMMUNITY
DESIGN BUILD AND OPERATE
ASYLUM SEEKERS
R V FIRST SOS AND ANOTHER EX P CHERWELL DC
PLANNING PERMISSION
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S299
DOE CIRCULAR 18/84
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY