R v Exeter CC ex parte J L Thomas & Co Ltd and Another
Language: English Series: New Law Journal ; 139(6408) 19 May 1989, 679-680(2)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: QBD 28 April 1989. Appeal by industrial users, J and B, for judicial review of the council`s (E) decision to grant planning permission to developer (T) for a substantial residential developemnt in a heavily industrialised area. J, an animal-waste processor and B, a steel fabricator, operated from the area and objected to the proposed development because of concern that incompatibility of their use with the proposed residential use might lead to claims in nuisance being made against them, forcing them to relocate. J and B submitted that 1) the power in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s29 to grant planning permission was subject to s51 of the Act, which would entitle E to issue a discontinuance order requiring cessation of uses and 2) E granted the planning permission for an ulterior motive; i.e. to procure J and B`s discontinuance of their existing lawful use without the compensation which they could expect under s51. E contended there was nothing improper in a council hoping o| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS40838 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 26281-1001 |
QBD 28 April 1989. Appeal by industrial users, J and B, for judicial review of the council`s (E) decision to grant planning permission to developer (T) for a substantial residential developemnt in a heavily industrialised area. J, an animal-waste processor and B, a steel fabricator, operated from the area and objected to the proposed development because of concern that incompatibility of their use with the proposed residential use might lead to claims in nuisance being made against them, forcing them to relocate. J and B submitted that 1) the power in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s29 to grant planning permission was subject to s51 of the Act, which would entitle E to issue a discontinuance order requiring cessation of uses and 2) E granted the planning permission for an ulterior motive; i.e. to procure J and B`s discontinuance of their existing lawful use without the compensation which they could expect under s51. E contended there was nothing improper in a council hoping o