“Without planning permission, the deposit of rubbish, rubble or other material on the land.”
“Permission be granted for the area covered by sections A-A and E-E, but not for the area covered by sections B-B, C-C and D-D.”
“The proposed tipping on the area covered by sections B-B, C-C and D-D will seriously affect the amenities of the locality.”
“I also agree, and only add that in relation to the 1955 permission nothing in the decision of this court is concerned to define further the area of the site which is covered by that permission. In order to discover that one must look back at the terms of the 1955 permission.”
“I would add that having heard what Schiemann LJ has said, I agree with it.”
“Deemed permission secured in respect of the 1955 permission (reference number 1722) but not for the 1961 permission (reference number 4240) after 3 months from the date of the application in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The conditions attached to the permission are those contained in the application together with the condition attached to the 1955 permission.”
“6. This matter clearly turns, as was perceived by Maurice Kay J, and indeed by the Court of Appeal who previously considered the matter, upon the construction of the grant in 1955. Mr Payne’s point quite shortly is: if the document says condition then that must be a condition and not any limitation of the grant. I quite agree with him and indeed with Maurice Kay J that the document is unfortunately phrased. It should not have set out the limited permission that was granted under the heading of 5 ‘Conditions’. No doubt that was because this was a standard form document that the local authority used for that purpose. “7. That said, however, it seems to me entirely clear that what was being granted in 1955 was what the local authority said was being granted: that is to say, permission for the area covered by sections AA and EE, but not for the area covered by sections BB, CC and DD. In other words, the permission was limited to part of the sought site. No permission at all was granted in respect of sections BB, CC and DD and therefore it was appropriate for conditions to be imposed in respect of those areas, because there can be no conditions on an area which is not the subject of planning permission… This is a short case of construction. I agree with the view taken of it by Maurice Kay J. I am also fairly confident that that was the view of the matter taken by Schiemann LJ when this matter was before the Court of Appeal, but the matter was not argued out there and I make it clear that I do not decide this case on the basis that I am bound by what Schiemann LJ said. I decide it on the basis, as did Maurice Kay J, of my own construction of the underlying document.”
“Without planning permission, the removal of stone, aggregate, minerals or other material from the land, the deposit of rubbish, rubble or other material on the land, and the sorting and recycling of stone, aggregate, minerals, rubbish, rubble or other material on the land.”
“13... There can be no doubt from these judgements that the 1955 permission does not extend to the whole of the area south of Nelson Road that was the subject of the application. It was limited to the area of the section A-A. Consequently, the 1955 permission gave no approval for development of any kind other than on the land covered by the permission and any works of tipping, mineral processing or recycling that have taken place outside that permitted area do not have the benefit of planning permission.”
“14. I turn next to the definition of the area covered by the 1955 permission, which the Council says is the area of ‘white land’ excluded from the notice. The south west boundary of the white land is defined by the boundary of the 1955 application site. The western extremity, where it comes to a point over the former reservoir, and its northern boundary are also defined by the 1955 application. To define the rest of the area covered by the 1955 permission the Council has looked at the 1955 survey drawing on which the cross sections are shown. Cross section A-A shows an unbroken black line and it was agreed at the inquiry that this shows the existing ground levels at that time. The cross-section contains a dotted line rising from the Nant Cae’r Moel stream at the south western end to a height of 800 feet AOD; it was agreed that this indicates the extent of the proposed tipping. No new tipping is shown along the rest of the cross section, where the site rises above 800 feet. The Council has therefore used the 800 feet ground contour in 1955 to define the northern extremity and eastern boundary of the white land, since tipping was shown by cross section A-A not to exceed this height. This would appear to coincide with a dotted line drawn on the 1955 survey drawing. This dotted line continues to the south east and the Council has used it to define the south east boundary of the white land. This boundary cuts across a steep slope where the land would have been capable of being tipped to the height of 800 feet shown on the cross section A-A. Nevertheless, I accept the Council’s argument that if it had been intended to fill this area it would be reasonable to assume that cross sections B-B, C-C and D-D would have been extended across this south west part of the 1955 application site, rather than being limited to a strip along the opposite south east boundary. For the appellants it was argued that the boundary of the white land, put forward by the Council as the area covered by the 1955 permission, is contrived and totally unconvincing. But I am satisfied that the boundary of the area excluded from the enforcement notice is reasonable and based on the best interpretation of the area of land covered by the 1955 permission that can be drawn from the available information. The appellants put forward no alternative boundary, but merely continued to assert, contrary to the clear judgements of the courts, that the 1955 permission covered the whole of the 1955 application site. The appellants have in my view failed to put forward any new evidence that has not already been considered by 7 the courts to show that the 1955 permission includes the land covered by the enforcement notice.”
“187B – Injunctions retraining breaches of planning control. (1) Where a local planning authority consider it necessary or expedient for any actual or apprehended breach of planning control to be restrained by injunction, they may apply to the court for an injunction, whether or not they have exercised or are proposing to exercise any of their other powers under this Part. (2) On an application under subsection (1) the court may grant such an injunction as the court thinks appropriate for the purpose of restraining the breach.”
“It seems to me perfectly clear that the judge on a section 187B application is not required, nor even entitled, to reach his own independent view of the planning merits of the case. These he is required to take as decided within the planning process, the actual or anticipated breach of planning control being a given when he comes to exercise his discretion. But it seems to me no less plain that the judge should not grant injunctive relief unless he would be prepared if necessary to contemplate committing the defendant to prison for breach of the order, and that he would not be of this mind unless he has considered for himself all questions of hardship for the defendant and his family if required to move, necessarily including, therefore, the availability of suitable alternative sites. I cannot accept that the consideration of those matters is, as Burton J suggested was the case in the pre-1998 Act era, ‘entirely 10 foreclosed’ at the injunction stage. Questions of the family’s health and education will inevitably be of relevance. But so too, of course, will countervailing considerations such as the need to enforce planning control in the general interest and, importantly therefore, the planning history of the site. The degree and flagrancy of the postulated breach of planning control may well prove critical. If conventional enforcement measures have failed over a prolonged period of time to remedy the breach, then the court would obviously be the readier to use its own, more coercive powers. Conversely, however, the court might well be reluctant to use its powers in a case where enforcement action had never been taken...”