James Hay Pension Trustees Ltd v. First Secretary of State and others [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWCA Civ 1387, 26 October 2006. The appellant secretary of state appealed against a decision that a planning document issued by a local authority was a certificate of lawful use of proposed development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s192. Decades earlier, planning permission had been granted to the site for change of use to a garage and store subject to conditions that included a restriction on the building being used for any purpose within the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1963 Class X other than with consent. The local authority issued a document stating that the original planning permission granted decades before was not personal to the previous occupier. "Held": it was decided that the document was not in the form prescribed by Sch.4 of the 1995 Order and the document did not on its face purport to certify what use was lawful and there was a failure to comply with Art.24 of the 1995 Order so the appeal was allowed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 136323-2001 |
[2006] EWCA Civ 1387, 26 October 2006. The appellant secretary of state appealed against a decision that a planning document issued by a local authority was a certificate of lawful use of proposed development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s192. Decades earlier, planning permission had been granted to the site for change of use to a garage and store subject to conditions that included a restriction on the building being used for any purpose within the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1963 Class X other than with consent. The local authority issued a document stating that the original planning permission granted decades before was not personal to the previous occupier. "Held": it was decided that the document was not in the form prescribed by Sch.4 of the 1995 Order and the document did not on its face purport to certify what use was lawful and there was a failure to comply with Art.24 of the 1995 Order so the appeal was allowed.