header-logo header-logo

11 November 2010
Issue: 7403 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Town & country planning

R (on the application of Usk Valley Conservation Group and others) v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority [2010] EWHC 71 (Admin), [2010] All ER (D) 194 (Jan)

Where an ambiguity in an application for planning permission went to the heart of what was proposed, a permission which reflected that ambiguity would in turn be legally uncertain in a way which could not be remedied by examination of the application, with the plans and documents which were part of it.

A permission which did not contain that ambiguity would not be for the development applied for. The grant was not the place or time to resolve such an ambiguity in the application; it was not for conditions to define the scale of the application in a way which went to the very heart or nature of the application, as opposed to controlling the permitted development.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll