QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT SITTING IN WALES
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| THE QUEEN
USK VALLEY CONSERVATION GROUP
PAUL RICHARD NEEDHAM
LIEUTENANT COLONEL MICHAEL HUGH LEDSTON LEWIS
ASTRID BERYL ELIZABETH INGLIS
|BRECON BEACONS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY
(1) GERAINT THOMAS
(2) CHRISTINE THOMAS
Ms M Ellis QC and Mr R Green (instructed by Solicitor to BNPA) for the Defendants
Mr Porten QC and Mr I Albutt (instructed by Robert Davies Partnership LLP) for the Interested Parties
Hearing dates: 20th, 21st and 22nd October 2009
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Ouseley :
The application and permission: the facts
The decision-making process
The validity of the permission
(ii) What did "existing facility" mean?
(iii) Effect of ambiguity
(v) Notification and public consultation
(vi) Screening opinion
(vii) Who made the decision?
(viii) The validity of the application documents
The challenge to the decision not to order the use to be discontinued
The relevance of compensation to a s102 decision
"(1) If, having regard to the development plan and to any other material considerations, it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of the proper planning of their area (including the interests of amenity)-
that any use of land should be discontinued, or that any conditions should be imposed on the continuance of a use of land; or
that any buildings or works should be altered or removed, they may by order-
require the discontinuance of that use, or
impose such conditions as may be specified in the order on the continuance of it, or
require such steps as may be so specified to be taken for the alteration or removal of the buildings or works, as the case may be."
"97.-(1) If it appears to the local planning authority that it is expedient to revoke or modify any permission to develop land granted on an application made under this Part, the authority may by order revoke or modify the permission to such extent as they consider expedient.
(2)In exercising their functions under subsection (1) the authority shall have regard to the development plan and to any other material considerations".
"the authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations."
"It also follows, however, that in so far as financial consequences do not relate to the use and development of land, they are not capable of amounting to material considerations. In my view that is fatal to the general proposition for which Mr Hoggett contends, that the cost to the local authority may be taken into account irrespective of land-use consequences. I see no warrant for treating cost as a permissible consideration even where it is not a "material consideration" within the meaning of the legislation. It is wholly consonant with the statutory purpose that decisions under sections 97 and 100 should be guided only by planning considerations. It cannot have been the legislative intention, in introducing provision for the payment of compensation, that the impact of such payment upon a local planning authority's financial position should condition the exercise of the powers to revoke or modify planning permissions. Payment of compensation enters into the picture only after a decision to revoke or modify has been taken. Its purpose is simply to ensure that persons interested in the land are compensated for any loss they suffer by reason of the revocation or modification of the permission."
The relevance of the particular valuations here