Bristol CC v SoS for the Environment and H M Williamson
Bristol CC v SoS for the Environment and H M Williamson
- 1987
- Journal of Planning and Environment Law (1987) JPL 718-721(4) .
QBD 16 March 1987. Appeal by plaintiff (B) from SoS`s grant of a certificate that the premises in question had an established use as a house in multiple occupation as six households with six occupiers, but refusal of a certificate that the premises had an established use as a house in multiple occupation as seven households with nine occupiers, as described in the application. At issue was whether the SoS, or the planning authority, could grant an established use certificate for a lesser use than that described in B`s application. QBD could see no reason for holding that either a planning authority`s power to grant a certificate under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s94(4) or the SoS`s power under s95(2) should be governed by or overridden by the provisions of s94(3). S94(3) covered two special cases where more than one use of the land was applied for or where it might be that the existing use did not apply to the whole of the land. Those two cases should not govern the implic
H M WILLIAMSON
QBD 16 March 1987. Appeal by plaintiff (B) from SoS`s grant of a certificate that the premises in question had an established use as a house in multiple occupation as six households with six occupiers, but refusal of a certificate that the premises had an established use as a house in multiple occupation as seven households with nine occupiers, as described in the application. At issue was whether the SoS, or the planning authority, could grant an established use certificate for a lesser use than that described in B`s application. QBD could see no reason for holding that either a planning authority`s power to grant a certificate under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s94(4) or the SoS`s power under s95(2) should be governed by or overridden by the provisions of s94(3). S94(3) covered two special cases where more than one use of the land was applied for or where it might be that the existing use did not apply to the whole of the land. Those two cases should not govern the implic
H M WILLIAMSON