"With reference to the highway authority's concern over this proposal being for a mineral extraction, this is simply not the case; the primary purpose is the excavation of lakes for the breeding of fish and fishing. This will inevitably involve the excavation of material, most of which it is hoped can be redistributed throughout the site subject to the environment agency's requirement that this does not raise ground levels within that part of the site liable to flood. Any excess material will need to be removed from the site and at the moment it is not clear how much this will be or where it will be taken to. However, the strategy is to keep such material to an absolute minimum in order to minimise the cost of disposal. The excavation period will in any event be very short, unlike a mineral operation that is reliant on demand before material is removed from the site."
"The parking arrangements shown on Drawing No. SST:02/A are acceptable. We are concerned that the proposed lake covers an area of 28,500m² which means that for every metre depth of excavation 28,500m² of spoil will have to be removed. This equates to about 1425 lorry trips i.e. 2850 HGV movements […] The applicant has indicated that at this stage they anticipate that some of the spoil will remain on the site but are unable to indicate how much and where the sand/gravel will be transported to. In the circumstances we would recommend that a planning condition should be imposed requesting details of HGV movements and routes [which] should be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any excavations. We would also recommend that conditions be imposed requiring the right turn lane to be constructed prior to the commencement of any excavations to ensure that there is a suitable access for HGVs and the parking shown on Drawing No. SST:02/A is provided prior to the development being brought into operation."
"Conditions 1) The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years, beginning with the date of this permission. Reason: Comply withSection 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 . 2) No development to which this planning permission relates shall commence until the highways and access improvements, including the provision of the right turn lane and the illuminated beacon poles, have been provided in full in the manner indicated on drawings D2 05501 - 01P3 and D 205 501 - 2P3 or in such alternative manner as may have been agreed in writing by the district planning authority. Reason: To ensure that there is suitable access into the site both to serve the development itself and to ensure that suitable access arrangements are in place to cater for HGV movement to and from the site during initial excavation works in the interests of highway safety. 3) The area shown for car parking on the approved site layout plan SST:02/A shall be laid out and hard surfaced and the car parking spaces shall be delineated in a manner previously agreed in writing by the district planning authority before the development hereby permitted is first used. That area shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking in the interests of road safety. 4) No development to which this permission relates shall commence until details of all HGV movements associated with the removal of excavated material from the site, including details of numbers of movements, amounts and destinations of materials and routes taken, have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the district planning authority. Removal of materials from site shall only take place in such manner as may have been agreed. Reason: In the interests of highway safety [...] 11) No development to which this planning permission relates shall commence until details of existing levels and proposed levels across the site, including sections through the main ponds, have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the district planning authority. The development shall only be carried out in that manner agreed. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development. 12) No development shall commence until details of any access roads and pathways through the site, including dimensions and means of surfacing, have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the district planning authority. Only such roads and pathways agreed shall be constructed on the site. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the site."
"to provide the necessary load-bearing capacity for the roads these areas will be excavated and reconstructed to the necessary specifications."
"The planning permission granted related to the use of land related to fish breeding and fishing, and it followed that excavations were necessary to create lakes; indeed condition number 11 of the planning permission required the submission and agreements of levels through the site and lakes, and condition number 4 required details of vehicle movements and amounts and destination of material agreed ... Mr Turner has been copied the detailed drawings attached to your letter of28 March 2007 ."
"variation of condition 2 of PA 48/06/06/R to allow works to commence on site prior to the highways and access improvements being provided in full."
"Ground (c) 8. NCC is the minerals planning authority for the area of the appeal site and the relevant Development Plan policies, covering the extraction of minerals, are contained in the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan 2005 (MLP). This document notes that, where development granted planning permission by a District Council involves incidental mineral extraction, this element of the proposal will need a separate planning application to be granted by NCC. 9. NCC submits that, in this instance, the proposed removal of at least 400,000 tonnes of excavated material cannot be considered small scale and therefore is unlawful unless benefitting from an extant planning permission. It also considers that a permission granted by the District Council is only for a change of use of the land and does not authorise the operation and development involved in the excavation and removal of the materials needed to create the lakes. 10. It quotes the findings of West Bowers Farm Products v Essex County Council [1995], a case that involved the construction of a reservoir for agricultural irrigation which required the extraction of large quantities of gravel. The Court held it possible that, where a development that has been granted planning permission involves a secondary activity, that activity may also need a separate planning permission depending on its scale and nature. That would be a matter of fact and degree to be determined by the decision-taker. The finding that the construction of the reservoir and the removal of the gravel were two distinct operations that fell into different planning categories clearly has a bearing on the situation in this appeal. 11. I agree that, in this case, the extent of mineral extraction could not be considered as a minor or ancillary undertaking in relation to the change of use of the land, and it would therefore need a planning permission that covered the work. The amount of material that would be excavated and transported off the site would be about four times the annual production of the smallest allocated site in the MLP and over 1.5% of the County's total production. 12. The appellants say that such consent has been granted under planning permissions 48/06/00006/R and 48/07/00008 and anyone studying the applications and decisions would realise that the construction of the lakes and the result of removal of the excavated materials from the site were proposed, shown on the accompanying drawings and referred to in, and controlled by, the attached conditions. They maintain that subsequent approval of the conditions means that there was no doubt that the council was clear about what had been permitted both in terms of the use and operational development proposed. 13. I accept that the District Council was well aware of the nature of the development that the appellants wished to carry out and knew, when discharging the conditions, that a substantial amount of material was intended to be excavated and removed from the site. The layout of the lakes was included on the plan referred to as ‘approved’ in condition 3 of 48/06/00006/R and the details submitted to obtain the discharge of condition 4 gave information on the extent of HGV movements involved. Those relating to condition 11 showed the depth of the proposed lakes. The appellants submit that this confirms that the operational development was, therefore, incorporated into the permissions. 14. Nevertheless, conditions attached to a planning permission can only limit the development to which they relate; they cannot expand it. The fact that the District Council has imposed and subsequently discharged the conditions does not mean that they were correctly related to the development granting planning permission, or that they were properly imposed. Whilst this does not inevitably mean that the planning permission would be invalid, as the conditions might be severable from it, similarly, it does not mean that the inclusion and discharge of the conditions have changed the nature of what has been permitted. 15. The pertinent question is, therefore, whether the operational development to which the conditions refer has been granted permission by the terms of the consent, not whether the conditions themselves have incorporated that development into it. 16. NCC argue that the planning permission and the application, if incorporated with it, are the only documents that have any relevance when determining what has been permitted. Neither specifically refers to an application for, or a grant of, any operational development. The application is ‘the use of land as lakes for breeding fish and fishing’, and this phrase is repeated in the decision notice as to development that has been permitted. The application form states that the proposal does not involve any development other than the change of use and the alteration of an existing access. It also states that no commercial development is proposed. 17. The description of the development refers to ‘use of land as lakes...’ and this has not specific meaning in planning terms. Lakes are a physical feature, not a use of land for which planning permission for a change of use could be granted. On the matter of the 'approved' drawing, it is in the form of a general, illustrative layout which shows the areas where the lakes are proposed to be created and the positions of the access to the site and the car park. This drawing is at a small scale of 1:1250 and does not give any information on the depths of the lakes. The decision notice refers to it only in the conditions and, in the absence of any other reference in the documents to the excavations for the lakes, this drawing cannot, in my view, be taken to have authorised their construction. 18. I conclude, therefore, that the planning permissions can only have granted consent for the use of the land for fish breeding and fishing. The grant of permission for a change of use alone does not permit other operational development in association with it, even if such development will be needed to implement the change of use. The creation of the lakes would be a separate operational development for which planning permission still needs to be obtained. The appeal on ground (c) consequently fails."
“1. The general rule is that in construing a planning permission which is clear. unambiguous and valid on its face, regard may only be had to the planning permission itself, including the conditions (if any) on it and the express reasons for those conditions… 2. This rule excludes reference to the planning application as well as to other extrinsic evidence, unless the planning permission incorporates the application by reference. In that situation the application is treated as having become part of the permission. The reason for normally not having regard to the application is that the public should be able to rely on a document which is plain on its face without having to consider whether there is any discrepancy between the permission and the Application… 3. For incorporation of the application in the permission to be achieved, more is required than a mere reference to the application on the face of the permission. While there is no magic formula, some words sufficient to inform a reasonable reader that the application forms part of the permission are needed, such as ‘... in accordance with the plans and application ...’ or ‘... on the terms of the application ...’, and in either case those words appearing in the operative part of the permission dealing with the development and the terms in which permission is granted. These words need to govern the description of the development permitted… 4. If there is an ambiguity of the wording of the permission, it is permissible to look at extrinsic material, including the application, to resolve that ambiguity ... 5. If a planning permission is challenged on the ground of absence of authority or mistake. It is permissible to look at extrinsic evidence to resolve that issue…”
"a grant of full planning permission for building operations is incomplete without the approved plans and drawings showing the detail of what has been permitted. In the absence of any indication to the contrary, those plans and drawings will be the plans listed in the application for permission."
"This is an appeal from a judgment of the Vice Chancellor given on16 July 1982 refusing certain declarations regarding the validity and effect of the planning permission sought by the plaintiffs/appellants against the defendants/ respondents, the Colchester Borough Council. Shortly, the case concerns an area of land at Wivenhoe in Essex on the River Colne where the appellants operate a port. On20 June 1966 planning permission was granted to the appellants’ predecessors in title on the face of it permitting a change of user of the land. The issue is whether the appellants as a result of that permission are entitled in addition to the permitted change of use to erect a warehouse or other buildings on the land pursuant to the permission given they sought a declaration to that effect before the Vice Chancellor and their entitlement was denied by the respondents on two grounds: first of all that the planning permission on its true construction authorised a change of use and only a change of use and did not and does not authorise the erection of any building on the land ... The learned Vice Chancellor held as a matter of construction that the planning permission did not extend to the erection of buildings and it thus became unnecessary for him to decide the second point ... I turn therefore to the crucial document in the case the planning permission itself. As I have said, it was dated20 June 1966 . It is addressed to the secretary of J Gliksten and Sons Limited who were the appellant's predecessors care of a well-known firm of surveyors and it reads : 'in pursuance of the powers exercised by them as local planning authority the county council of Essex having considered your - [and then there is the printed word ‘outline’ which has been deleted ] - application to carry out the following development’ And then there is in type: ‘the use of 35 acres of land adjoining Woodland How Shipyard and the River Colne, Wivenhoe for warehousing and open storage of timber and timber goods in accordance with the plan ... accompanying the said application do hereby give notice of their decision to grant permission for’ And then there are inserted in type the following words: ‘the use of ten acres of land shown hatched green on the plan accompanying the notes of decision at Rowhedge, Ferry Road, Wivenhoe for the warehousing and open storage of timber and timber goods subject to compliance with the following conditions'. There then follow three conditions. The second relates to access and the third to heights of materials and I need not I think read those. The important one for present purposes is the first condition which is in these terms: ‘The development hereby permitted may only be carried out in accordance with plans and particulars which shall previously have been submitted and approved by the local planning authority showing the layout of the site with adequate internal road circulation"
"The siting design superficial floor area and external appearance of any buildings to be erected and the means of access thereto" ... Nevertheless Mr Barnes submits ... what the permission on the face of it does is to grant permission for two quite separate uses that is to say the use of land for warehousing [keeping in a warehouse of timber and timber goods] and the storage of timber and timber goods in the open. He accepts that ‘warehousing’ is a word of wide importance. For instance, for Customs and Excise purposes a warehouse man is not necessarily someone who stores goods under cover but here, he says, the distinction is deliberately drawn between use for warehousing and use for storage in the open. Since here it is common ground that the land had in fact no buildings on it at the material time the specification for use for warehousing is, it is argued, meaningless unless it involves also a permission to erect that, without which the permitted use cannot be carried out. That, Mr Barnes, concedes might be more difficult to sustain if permission stood alone, for the words of permission refer only to an application for permission for ‘change of user’ but he argues when you combine that with the condition numbered 1 the inference is irresistible that permission to use the land carries with it a permission to put up buildings. The conditions state in terms that ‘the development hereby permitted’ can only be carried out after approval of the plans. On any other hypothesis he suggests the condition is meaningless. In his affidavit Mr Souter, the borough planner, explains the condition as being merely informative, that is to say its purpose, he says, is to draw attention to the fact that, although the user is permitted, a further permission will have to be sought for buildings to be put up but as Mr Barnes points out that is not what in fact it purports to do. The condition does not draw attention to the need for a further permission but to the need to obtain approval of plans for the development "hereby permitted"
‘Ever since theTown and Country Planning Act 1947 the definition of 'development' which is at the root of all planning law has fallen under two heads. First there is the carrying out of building engineering mining or other operations in on over or under land. Second as an alternative there is 'the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land'. Then he goes on: ‘Planning authorities in granting planning permissions must be taken to be well aware of these definitions and so must the members of all professions who deal with planning matters. It is against that background that one must consider the recital in the planning permission of the application 'carry out the following development' And he then quotes the words which I have already referred to from the planning permission. He then goes on. 'I can well see that the word ‘warehousing’ implies that there will be a building which the warehousing can be affected and of course the reference in condition 1 to ‘in particular showing the siting design superficial floor area and external appearance of any buildings to be erected and the means of access thereto' implies that buildings will or may be erected yet all that is permitted is the 'use' of the land for warehousing. There is nothing which in terms gives permission for the carrying out of building ... operations on the land or any other words to that effect. It is indeed an unhappily worded planning permission but in that respect it is not unique.’
‘I do not see why a local planning authority should not determine that the land is suitable for use for warehousing purposes although those purposes cannot be carried out until some building or buildings have been erected in which it can be done. The erection of that building or buildings must of course be the subject of a planning permission before the erection can begin but the fact remains that planning permission is phrased in the terms of use and use must at least prima facie bear the importance and well known meaning in which theTown and Country Planning Act 1971 and the previous acts have given to that word.’
‘Even if on a fair construction of the planning permission it is offered a choice between merely permitting a use and on the other hand permitting the erection of warehouse buildings I find it difficult to see what buildings it permits to be erected, how many buildings, how large in area and cubic capacity, how high, situated on what part or parts of the ten acres. Such permission would be the blankest of all blank cheques. The planned company says that all this will have to be spelt out in the plans and particulars envisaged by condition number 1 yet on the face of the planning permission the application was not an outline permission for the printed word 'outline' in front of 'application' which twice appears on the planning permission has been struck out on each occasion. As a permission to erect a building or buildings the planning permission has for me a striking air of unreality about it which would be at once apparent to anyone who knows anything about planning law'. Of course I see the force of Mr Barnes’ argument but it has to be accepted that if this was intended as permission to carry out building operations and was not an outline permission, it was to say the least of it a highly unconventional document. I turn back therefore to the statutory background. As Mr Sullivan for the respondent has pointed out, the distinction between development consisting of a change of use and development consisting of carrying out operations on land goes right back to the inception of the planning legislation. The two types of development are quite distinct and it is established by a decision of this court if indeed authority would need to be on the terms of section 290 that 'use' does not include the carrying out of alterations operations which alter the land... One must assume therefore at the outset, Mr Sutherland submits, that when a local authority issues a permission employing the statutory term of ‘use’ it does not intend that term shall be employed in some other non-statutory sense. Mr Barnes indeed, I think, felt bound to concede that his construction involves attaching to the word in the permission a significance wider than that which is attached to the same word in the statute, but he says that it is simply a matter of applying the ordinary dictionary meaning to words and one has to look at the words against the statutory background, no doubt because in the light of what an ordinary person looking for permission would construe it as doing in order to support his construction. Therefore one has, I think, to start with the assumption that both the applicant for permission and the local authority were using the word in some secondary and non-statutory sense and that, I am bound to say, appears to be to be unlikely. Building from that Mr Sullivan takes two points. In the first place he says that the terms ofsection 29(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 would make it clear that the only power to grant a permission is in response to an application, a contention which Mr Barnes does not controvert. I will refer briefly to that subsection, which is in these terms: ‘Subject to the provisions of section 26 to 28 of this Act [which do not matter for present purposes] and to the following provisions of this Act, where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission, that authority, in dealing with the application, shall have regards to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations, and – a) subject to sections 41, 42, 70 and 77 to 80 of this Act, may grant planning permission, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think fit; or b) may refuse planning permission’
"planning control is the creature of statute. It is an imposition in the public interest of restriction on private rights of ownership of land."