Costain Homes Ltd and another v SoS Environment and another
Costain Homes Ltd and another v SoS Environment and another
- 1988
- Journal of Planning and Environment Law (1988) JPL 701-705(5) .
QBD 30 March 1988. Appeal by applicants (C) against refusal of planning permission for development in the green belt. In 1984 Hillingdon LBC refused permission for a scheme to improve an existing nursery and greenhouse business, develop a housing estate, public open space and other facilities. C appealed to the SoS Environment (S). After an inquiry, S wrote in January 1985 indicating that consent was likely to be forthcoming, but before reaching a decision, herequired confirmation of a legal agreement which ensured that profits would be reinvested in the nursery site. A second letter in July 1985 sought clarification about access and maintenance of the open space before a decision could be made. In April 1986 S wrote dismissing the appeal. C appealed, contending that the first letter amounted to a grant of permission, or that it was a representation that estopped S arriving at a different decision. The main point at issue was whether S`s decision was unreasonable.
COSTAIN HOMES LTD AND ANOTHER V SOS ENVIRONMENT AND ANOTHER
R V INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS EX P PRESTON
R V WEST OXFORDSHIRE DC EX P C H PEARCE HOMES LTD
R V YEOVIL BC EX P ELIM PENTACOSTAL CHURCH TRUSTEES LTD
S52 AGREEMENTS
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1971 S245
WESTERN FISH PRODUCTS LTD V PENWITH DC
QBD 30 March 1988. Appeal by applicants (C) against refusal of planning permission for development in the green belt. In 1984 Hillingdon LBC refused permission for a scheme to improve an existing nursery and greenhouse business, develop a housing estate, public open space and other facilities. C appealed to the SoS Environment (S). After an inquiry, S wrote in January 1985 indicating that consent was likely to be forthcoming, but before reaching a decision, herequired confirmation of a legal agreement which ensured that profits would be reinvested in the nursery site. A second letter in July 1985 sought clarification about access and maintenance of the open space before a decision could be made. In April 1986 S wrote dismissing the appeal. C appealed, contending that the first letter amounted to a grant of permission, or that it was a representation that estopped S arriving at a different decision. The main point at issue was whether S`s decision was unreasonable.
COSTAIN HOMES LTD AND ANOTHER V SOS ENVIRONMENT AND ANOTHER
R V INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS EX P PRESTON
R V WEST OXFORDSHIRE DC EX P C H PEARCE HOMES LTD
R V YEOVIL BC EX P ELIM PENTACOSTAL CHURCH TRUSTEES LTD
S52 AGREEMENTS
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1971 S245
WESTERN FISH PRODUCTS LTD V PENWITH DC