Tuesday, 23 January 2018

Going to appeal


On Wednesday 1 March last year, I reported on the High Court decision in Winters v. SSCLG [2017] EWHC 357 (Admin), on the premature commencement of development that required a prior approval application under the relevant part of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. However, this case went on to the Court of Appeal on 5 December. I have not yet caught up with the CA judgment, but will report on it as soon as I have had a chance to read it. I felt that the first instance judgment was entirely in line with the current understanding of the law relating to ‘jumping the gun’ on permitted development, but at least one judge has clearly been persuaded that there is an arguable point to be made in favour of a contrary view. My money would nevertheless have been on the High Court judgment being upheld, but we shall see whether I was right or wrong about this.

On Wednesday 1 November, I drew attention to the judgment in Lambeth LBC v SSCLG [2017] EWHC 2412 (Admin), in which the issue of implied conditions arose again. This is another judgment which seemed to me to demonstrate an entirely correct application of the law on this topic as it is currently understood (taking on board the observations of Lord Carnwath JSC in Trump International Golf Club Scotland Limited v Scottish Ministers [2015] UKSC 74). The Lambeth case also went up to the Court of Appeal on 1 December, and when I get hold of the judgment it will be interesting to see what they have made of it.

Finally, on Friday 8 December, I mentioned the High Court judgment in Braintree DC v SSCLG [2017] EWHC 2743, as to the meaning of "isolated" in paragraph 55 of the NPPF. However, I understand that this too is going on to the Court of Appeal, and so I will postpone comment on that case until we see what the Court of Appeal has to say on this issue.

UPDATE (3 March 2018): I am informed that the appeal to the Court of Appeal in the case of Winters has now been withdrawn, and so the High Court judgment in this case stands unchallenged.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

7 comments:

Michael Hyde said...

Hi Martin. Have you 'got hold' of the Court of Appeal judgement in Lambeth yet? Regards. Mike

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

No. Not yet.

I assume that judgment was reserved. I think we can take it that we shall all hear about it as soon as the judgment is handed down.

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

Still no update on the Lambeth case. The latest status report I have been able to find still says: "Appeal outstanding to Court of Appeal (Civil Division); 01 December 2017"

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

I should have added that the latest status report that I have on the Braintree case says "Appeal outstanding to Court of Appeal (Civil Division); 24 January 2018".

Anonymous said...

I notice that the Court of Appeal dismissed the Braintree appeal. Case No: C1/2017/3292

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

Yes. The LPA’s challenge, which had been dismissed by the High Court, was also rejected by the Court of Appeal, in a judgment given on 28 March.

I am currently writing a summary of the Court of Appeal decision for the blog, which I hope to post within the next few days.

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

I have now published this post. See the Home page.