Image from Google Jackets

Costain Homes Ltd and another v SoS Environment and another

Language: English Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; (1988) JPL 701-705(5)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: 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.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39876 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 19710-1001

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.