Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/39 - Stephen Hotton v Island Development Committee [1998] UR 39 (24 February 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/39.html
Cite as: [1998] UR 39
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
24 February 1998
Before: FC Hamon Esq., Deputy Bailiff
and Jurats A Vibert and AP Quérée
BetweenStephen Hotton LimitedAppellants
AndThe Island Development CommitteeRespondents
Paul Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate, for the Committee
Advocate RGS Fielding for the Appellants
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: The notices which are the subject of this appeal were served on 2 February 1993, with a compliance date of 7 March 1993. That was nearly five years ago. Both counsel have asked us to accept that despite the delay, the notices are good.
In a discovered document which was clearly never intended to see the light of day, one of the Planning Officers wrote to another (in 1987) of a "prime example of Orders, Counter Orders, non-compliance with Committee decisions, confusions and utter chaos". We see no reason to depart from that sentiment.
This saga, for that is what it is, has been proceeding for some thirty years, to little or no effect.
From the end of the Occupation, the land in question, which lies to the south of La Rue de la Ville Emphrie, had been used rent free by JH Michel & Sons, the haulage contractors, to dump sand, sea gravel and stone. Mr Stephen Hotton owns Stephen Hotton Limited with Mr David Bisson. Field 721 belongs to Mr David Bissons mother. No rental is paid to her, but the company apparently gives money to charity each year depending on its profitability.
Stephen Hotton Limited was formed in 1968 and the company for a time shared the area with JH Michel & Sons. Inexorably, Stephen Hotton Limited began to expand into the area. It is a profitable business but it has, like all businesses, had its ups and downs.
We have to deal with thirty years of shameful dereliction of duty by the planning authorities and with thirty years of scandalous desecration of a valley by the appellant company which has left in the apposite words of Harman LJ in Britt v Buckinghamshire County Council (1964) 1 QB 77; (1963) 2 All ER 175: "an eyesore glaring in the face of the countryside."
The Island Development Committee is now the Planning and Environment Committee. The Committee has duties under the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964.
The purpose of that law is, under Article 2, inter alia:
"b)to ensure that land is used in a manner serving the best interests of the community
c)to protect and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape or the countryside
d)to preserve and improve the general amenities of any part of the island and generally to prevent the spoliation of the amenities of the island".
The notices, the subject of this appeal, are brought under Article 13 of the law which reads:-
"If it appears to the Committee that the amenities of any part of the Island are seriously injured by the condition of any land, the Committee may serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice requiring such steps for abating the injury as may be specified in the notice to be taken within such period as may be so specified."
Article 12 of the law empowers the Committee to serve:
"c)on the owner or other person for the time being having any estate or interest in any land on which there is a dump or disused vehicle (not being a caravan) requiring him to deal with the same in such manner as may be required by the notice."
The Article goes on to say:-
"2.No compensation shall be payable in respect of injurious affection to any estate or interest in any land or otherwise by reason of any requirement made under this Article or of the compliance with any such requirement."
The Royal Court has moved a long way in its consideration of appeals under Article 21 of the law from Le Masurier v The Natural Beauties Committee (1958) 13 CR 138; (1951-58) TD 25,182 to the Court of Appeal judgment in Island Development Committee v Fairview Farm Limited (1996) JLR 306. In that judgment the learned Court said this at page 317:-
"The duty of the Court on an appeal under Article 21 is not merely to consider whether any reasonable body could have reached the decision which the Committee did reach, but to decide whether the Court considered that that
decision was, in its view, unreasonable".
It is interesting that that point, first argued in Cottignies v The Housing Committee (1969) JJ 1149, has, like this action, taken thirty years to come to fruition. We turn to Cottignies for a different reason however. At page 1156 the Court said:-
"We here insert the observation that the Committee, for so long as the law remains unchanged, is a body which has a continuous existence, separate and apart from its individual members and it cannot, therefore, divorce itself from its past action and decisions, because if it did so its decisions, instead of being consistent and coherent, would be capricious and caprice is a characteristic not permitted to a tribunal".
We have already (but of course without the benefit of all the detail provided to us over the past three days) made a preliminary finding on the 11th October that the respondent was empowered under the law to issue the notices appealed from. What we must now decide is whether its track record allows it to insist on the enforcement of these notices. There are two and in terms they order the appellant to:-
"remove all vehicles, vehicle parts, machinery, equipment, rubble and associated debris belonging to Stephen Hotton Limited from the land identified on the attached plan outlined and hatched in red and situated alongside La Rue de la Ville Emphrie, in the Parish of St. Lawrence"
and
"cease the use of the land identified on the attached plan outlined and hatched in red and situated alongside La Rue de la Ville Emphrie, in the Parish of St Lawrence, for the purpose of parking and/or storing vehicles, vehicle parts, machinery, equipment, rubble and associated debris."
Under Article 21, and on an appeal, the Court has a duty to consider three questions: (See eg Le Maistre v IDC (1980) JJ);
"i)were the proceedings of the Committee, in the matter appealed from, in general sufficient and satisfactory;
2.)was the decision or action taken by the Committee one which the Law empowered the Committee to take and
3.)was the decision reached by the Committee one to which it could reasonably have come having regard to all the circumstances of the case?"
We have already dealt with question 2 in our preliminary judgment of the 11 October 1997. In that judgment we passed somewhat briefly over Britt v Buckinghamshire County Council. We need to examine it again.
"In that case it was held that the power conferred by Section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 to require the abatement (without compensation) of a condition of a vacant site or open land that is injurious to the amenity of an area extends to requiring the abatement by a landowner of an active use, or a condition brought about by such use and the power is exercisable, unless planning permission for the use has been granted, notwithstanding that the use is an established use which existed before the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 came into force."
Crown Advocate Matthews calls that case in aid. Article 13 of the Law was derived from Section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. That case did hold that the existence of an established use at the site is irrelevant to the disposal of the appeal.
It is necessary to examine in some detail the facts and let it be said at once that Advocate Fielding in his rational and even-minded approach to this case readily conceded at the outset that he was not submitting that the appellant was a "paragon of righteousness".
On 17 April 1974, the Secretary of the Parish of St. Lawrence wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of the Island Development Committee to say (of the land in question):-
"There has certainly been an intensification of the said uses during the last five years and it is agreed that endeavours have been made in the last couple of years to "tidy up" but it is felt that there is still much scope for improvement, particularly with the lower area".
The matter dragged on until on 16 March 1977, the Committee sent a letter to Advocate Fiott, then acting for the company, in these terms:
"However, the Committee recognises that with the social and economic evolution of the Island, it is important to make available sites for the type of enterprise which your client conducts, and as no alternative site appears to be immediately available, the Committee is prepared to support a positive proposal for the development of the land with an industrial building so designed as to allow for the accommodation of the vehicles and equipment and their general maintenance.
Should your client be prepared to accept the advice offered by the Committee, then it is suggested that suitably qualified advice should be sought in the preparation of a formal application which will be accompanied not only by a basic floor plan of the building, but also by sophisticated sketch designs which will illustrate the scale, mass and general appearance of the building and the yard area which will be necessary. Technical factors, such as the disposal of water from the washing equipment together with the disposal of surface water from impervious surfaces must be taken into account.
The Committee has had regard to the sketch design which accompanied previous correspondence which you have supplied, but has expressed the opinion that that building does not appear capable of housing all of the plant and equipment described in the schedule, and, furthermore, it might be preferable to position the building closer to the road, and the yard area, which probably will be the least tidy aspect of the enterprise, hidden on the south side of the main building.
Should you be in any doubt as to the Committees advice in the matter, or should you require any further guidance, I should be pleased to see you in company with your client at a mutually convenient time and date."
Plans were accordingly drawn up for a proposed haulage workshop and office. A profile was requested to be built. The Committee visited the profile but the Planning Office wrote on 9 February 1978, to say that it "recalled that it has previously encouraged (your clients) to make formal application for the construction of a suitable building at Ville Emphrie to house the business which has become established on the land". However, the Committee "has come to the conclusion that the scale, mass and disposition of the building on the site is not such that it could support a Report and Proposition to the States which would allow this Development to take place in the Green Zone".
A modified form of development was suggested. That too failed. The rejection notice dated 9th February, 1978, states that "the proposed works would represent a substantial extension of building development on open ground in the Green Zone and would detract from the appearance of the landscape and the amenities of the locality".
On 6 March 1978, a letter from the Committee to a neighbour said this:-
"Basically, the position is that the Island Development Committee has been convinced that there is an established use of this area of land on the south side of Ville Emphrie for the storage of heavy haulage plant and machinery. The Committee has determined that it is unsatisfactory to have all of this plant and machinery in the open air and has encouraged the submission of an application for a building whereby the business can be conducted in a more acceptable manner.
The plans which were produced did not meet with the Committee’s requirement in that they involved a substantial extension on to the remaining part of the open côtils to the east of the recognised site, and the Committee has very firmly indicated that this is not satisfactory and that it will only accept a building on that area of the site which is already in use."
By an Act dated 22 November 1978, the Committee reimbursed the expenditure incurred in the preparation of the plans and turned its attention to a site on Rue Sara, St. Lawrence, where the company was also carrying on business.
In 1980 there was an investigation into whether an alternative site might be found. The company indicated real interest in the La Collette Reclamation site. It appeared that no sites were available at La Collette (Act of the Committee of 29 October 1980). The Committee noted the company’s interest and gave some figures relative to the cost of renting land at Rue des Prés Trading Estate. Mr Peter Thorne, the Director of Planning, gave, under cross examination, details of companies that had been moved to La Collette. There were five firms who had since that time been accommodated there.
On 21 December 1981, the Chief Officer wrote to a neighbour a letter which contained two telling paragraphs:-
"I also have to say that the outcome of the discussions with the Crown Officers, who act as the Committees legal advisers, is that the present use of this site has now existed too long for the Committee to be able to foreclose."
And
"As you will probably be aware, Field 721 and its surroundings at Ville Emphrie are located within a Green Zone. It is therefore all the more to be regretted that an alien activity has managed to become established in such position of landscape value and in an otherwise quiet location. Unfortunately, this department is over-stretched as to its ability to service its commitments, which occasionally gives rise to difficulties of effective control over situations such as have arisen at Field 721."
By 1982, the appellant was applying to replace the existing outstanding outbuilding and lean to structures at Les Cyprès with a "garage tool and agricultural implement store". The committee used the proper development permit as a lever to attempt to get the appellant to vacate No. 2 Rue Sara where it carried out unauthorized business (notices had been served) and to obtain "written assurances" that the use of the land under discussion would cease. The company wrote a letter. They declined to be "pushed out of the site". They said: "We would stress that we need this area and would keep it as tidy as possible".
Advocate Fiott wrote a letter with five undertakings, some of which were more ambiguous then others but none of which (with no disrespect to the advocate) was worth the paper it was written on. For example:-
"It is not his intention to increase the use of the land".
"That while he will continue with the established use of the land it is not his intention to extend that ................. use." (our underlining)
Astonishingly, the Committee wrote back on 14 April 1983, seeking to interpret the undertakings, wrote the same day to the companys architect and then on the same day issued a consent with only this relevant condition:
"That the storage of vehicles and equipment shall take place in the new buildings and shall not be allowed in the open yard other than of a minor nature which shall not exceed the height of the 6 ft. Boundary fence."
A reply to a letter from the National Trust for Jersey gives a better insight into the Committees muddled thinking:-
"Thank you for your letter of 24 May
The Committee did not succumb to the persistence as suggested in your letter and had, in fact, attempted to resolve a very complicated saga which had been compounded by previous decisions and following legal advice from the Crown Officers.
The Committee was intent upon securing the unauthorized use of a property in Rue Sara at Les Six Rues for the storage and repair of commercial vehicles and also had regard to the ‘established’ use of the site at the bottom of Ville Emphrie for the storage of equipment. The Committee did attempt to secure the removal of both but did manage to achieve a maintenance of the status quo on the site in Ville Emphrie and a time conditioned cessation of the use at Rue Sara.
The approval of Les Cyprès is the best that the Committee could achieve in view of the circumstances outlined above and the condition imposed shows the Committee’s attempt to contain the commercial use of this site and to ensure that it does not become visually unacceptable in this important Green Zone area.
You can be assured that there has been no departure from the Committees normal principles and that this decision was a ‘one off’ which hopefully will not need to be repeated elsewhere."
A prosecution on the Rue Sara site followed and Mr Hotton was fined £680. In its judgment, that was not distributed, the Court opened with these words:-
"The Court is convinced that Brinkmanship was the right description and that the defendant has tried to delay his compliance to the very end."
The Committee extended the development permit for the shed at Les Cyprès to 31 October 1987, and on 27 October 1987, granted permission for a retaining wall and broad leafed tree planting. A further application was made for a proposed retaining wall and wash bay at Les Cyprès. That was rejected as "it would present an unsatisfactory appearance and be inappropriate in a countryside (sic) and would be detrimental to the amenities of the locality." Car washing continued. At one time (for a short period) new Subaru cars coming into Jersey were dewaxed and degreased at Les Cyprès.
A new line, smacking of desperation, came in a letter to the Constable of St. Lawrence on 26 November 1987. The letter concludes:-
"There is an important contribution which the Parish can make. Mr Hotton has P30 licensed semi-trailers. These should not, the Committee believes, be allowed into La Ville Emphrie. You will have the Committee’s support if you take a tough line on this."
A petition signed by many residents was received by the Committee; the Constable of St. Lawrence continued to write. On 17 December 1987, the Assistant Planner wrote to one of the neighbours:-
"The Committee totally agrees with your concern at the deterioration of the environment in this area, and following further meetings with Mr Hotton and Mr Bisson, his partner, has in the first instance asked for remedial and restoration work to be undertaken as soon as possible.
This will involve compliance with a condition on the permit requiring the parking of all vehicles and equipment in the storage shed at Les Cyprès, the reformation of the bank adjacent to the road, to include tree and hedge planting.
The Committee has also required the removal of materials and equipment on the opposite side of the road including the two excavators and the restoration of this part of the site.
It is however unable to require the removal of the skips and trailers at Meadow Bank or the smaller parking area further up the hill, as this has an established use over many years.
The Committee has asked that urgent action is taken by Mr Hotton, to improve and restore this area.
The Island Development Committee will have to take stronger action if the required improvements are not undertaken within a reasonable time."
On 10 November 1988, there was a meeting of the Committee. It was noted that: "Mr Hotton had undertaken works without its consent and that the area had been extended with fresh earth-moving." It was determined to serve a Notice. A strongly worded letter was sent to Mr Hotton on 15 November and a formal notice for the company to remove all dumped material from Field 720 and reinstate the field to its "original contours and conditions" was served on 1 January 1998. On 2 February "further papers" were sent to the Law Officers of the Crown to consider prosecution.
The Committee continued to bluster but from time to time showed its metal. On 20 April 1989, the Committee filled in with liquid concrete the wash-down pit. Photographs were taken in colour. That followed an enforcement notice dated 11 January 1989, with the final date as 10 February 1989.
The Company dug out the pit and carried on. By 14 April the President of the Committee, the late Constable of St. John, was writing to a neighbour of the appellant and saying:-
"You will of course be aware that the problems were started in Senator Shentons presidential term, when certain permissions were given."
On 19 June the President wrote to Advocate Fiott to say:-
"The Committee has made some decisions about the future of this area and we wish to tell Mr Hotton that we will not be persuaded by empty promises, which has been the tenor of our conversations".
The Committee considered compulsory purchase.
The eyesore continued to expand. An internal memorandum speaks of "It’s worse than ever". Words such as "Top Priority" appear in capital letters. Constable Le Feuvre and the neighbours continued their written protests. On 8 May the President wrote of taking "drastic action to the point of going to compulsory purchase".
On 23 May 1989, the Enforcement Officer wrote to say that the notice not having been complied with the Committee would itself take action. A copy of the letter was sent to the Duty Centenier. It would appear that Blüchers Dragoons were coming over the hill. The momentum continued.
In a long letter to the company from the Assistant Director - Development Control are these concluding words:-
"Your client has now erected a 6 ft. Fence around part of the parking area without permission and obviously we will have to investigate the matter. This again illustrates your clients attitude towards the Committee.
While I can assure you that your client is not being singled out for special attention, this site will continue to be monitored at regular intervals."
Some remedial action was taken by the company. On 30 September 1989, two notices were served under Article 13 of the law. This would have cleared the area of all its debris although the use of the words "unused vehicles" may have caused difficulty. The law uses the words "disused vehicles". As apparently nothing had happened the Committee served a further notice on the company on 19 January 1990, to remove everything (using the meaningless phrase "unused vehicles" again) for compliance by 1 March 1990. The action was placed on the pending list on 27 February 1990.
An exploratory letter had been sent to Mrs Joan Bisson (who owned the land) in December 1989. She replied through her advocate to say that she did not wish to sell.
Meanwhile the Company filed a new application for proposed additional areas and drainage and additional fencing and wall. It was refused.
The Committee President wrote to a neighbour on 30 April 1990, to say that his Committee had decided to purchase the land "and return it to the pleasant area which that part of Jersey so richly deserves". Ominously to us, he also remarked that "these sort of things cannot be achieved overnight".
A professional valuer (not called before us) prepared a valuation.
A further notice concerning breach of the development permit of 14 April 1983 was served on 15 July 1996.
A meeting was arranged following a written submission of Advocate Fiott. The Solicitor General - then a Crown Advocate - told us of the meeting. She said that Constable Le Sueur and Mr Stephen Hotton were joking together. The President told Mr Hotton that he did not appear to have done much and Mr Hotton said that he had got rid of that material that he did not want to keep. Miss Nicolle felt that the matter was hopeless. There was no meeting of minds and the area looked like a tip.
On 4 July 1991, the Committee withdrew its notices of 19 January 1990. They reserved the right to re-serve. A letter from the Committee on 4 July 1991 says;-
"In withdrawing this Notice the Committee does not accept that there has been any improvement in the area, but are seeking to use alternative means to secure improvement to the site.
Blüchers Dragoons had decided to bivouac rather than to charge.
The Committee, on advice, paid the companys wasted costs.
The Committee began to press ahead with possible compulsory purchase and on 28 August 1991, made a formal offer to Mrs Bisson to purchase her land at St. Lawrence for £51,425. By 1 April 1992, Mrs Bisson was able to reply, after some reminders had been sent to her. She was not prepared to sell. She pointed out in a letter that if there were compulsory purchase without an alternative site, several men would have to be made redundant, as the company would be forced to curtail its activities. About the same time, Mr Bisson sent an impassioned letter to all States Members asking for the matter to be reconsidered. By now, the Committee was clearly fired up but all depended on the Finance & Economics Committees agreement and when that Committee replied on 6 July 1992, its reply was not favourable. Its Act set out as follows:-
"The Committee, with the Director of the Planning Department, the Director of the Property Services Department and the Acting States Land and Property Officer in attendance, considered a Treasury paper, dated 1 July 1992, together with a report and proposition of the Island Development Committee proposing compulsory purchase of Field 721, La Rue de la Ville Emphrie, St. Lawrence, with funds to be taken from the Committee’s vote C0904 - Acquisition of Land (Major Reserve).
The Committee was advised of the 20-year history of attempts to regulate the use of the site and of the unfavourable effect of its use on the area. The cost of £65,000 was based on an estimate by William Bull Limited and on legal use of the site for storage purposes only, although this did not take into account potential compensation payment to the tenant. The land in question was poor quality agricultural land and it was unlikely, once the tenant had been relocated, that any substantial return on the purchase would be achieved. However, no alternative site for the business had yet been identified.
The Committee was advised that the tenant was providing a valuable service to the Island at a reasonable cost, however the service was being provided in the wrong location and the intention was to eliminate the industrial use of the site and restore the area to its natural state.
The Committee, whilst supporting the aims of the Island Development Committee in attempting to prevent industrial use of a site in a rural area in order to protect the environment, expressed concern about the potential and unquantifiable costs which might be incurred in relocating the tenant on an alternative site and decided to advise the Island Development Committee that it should continue to use the full measure of the law to remove the tenant or to regularise the use of the site before resorting to compulsory purchase. The Committee decided that it would not support the proposition for compulsory purchase until an alternative site and the full costs involved had been identified.
The Greffier of the States was directed to send a copy of this Act to the Island Development Committee accordingly."
That clearly sent the Island Development Committee into a dilemma and a letter to Senator Shenton of 29 July 1992 (he was now assisting one of the owners who lived in the area) said this:-
"The Committee felt in some difficulty because there is no doubt that Stephen Hotton Limited, although he is a bad neighbour, is providing a useful service to the island and it is important that he has somewhere to operate which causes either little or no nuisance to neighbours. Such sites are impossible to find in the island at present and whilst much research is going on, we have yet to identify one".
The Committee decided to revert to the serving of notices to remove the nuisance and noted at its Committee meeting of 30 August 1992, that the appropriate course of action would be taken to ensure that the land was restored "to its original pristine condition". In 1993, the President of the Committee, the late Constable Le Sueur, was writing to one of the owners "It is not in my view possible to completely revoke the development permission for Les Cyprès. The premises have always had a certain amount of commercial activity associated with them principally with the late Mr AV Bissons building activities prior to the Island Planning Law coming into force." It is those notices that this Court is dealing with today.
We have visited the site. It is a disgrace. It is far worse than a blot on the landscape. We have considered the law. We have listened carefully to all the evidence. We have heard, for instance, from a neighbour, Mr Brian Johnson, who while he told us graphically of the noise caused by the skips being emptied and sorted, a noise which he described as "absolutely outrageous and stressful" is building two houses for speculative sale on his property. We also heard and sympathized to a certain extent, with Mr Hottons and Mr Bissons wish to continue in business.
We have no doubt that the notices are not ultra vires but we recall the words of the learned Court of Appeal in Island Development Committee v Fairview Farm Limited: "The Royal Court has power to reach its own decision of what would be a reasonable condition". This seems to us to be an appropriate case to re-write the condition in what we consider to be a reasonable form. We must consider, in that context, whether the conditions as they stand would cause injustice to the appellant. We think that their immediate effects are too draconian in the light of the history of negotiation that we have attempted to outline in this judgment. Whilst we can see no reason why this saga should continue for one day longer, we intend to temper the effect of the notices so that the company can stay in business if it so wishes.
We will stay the notices for six months, with leave to the company to apply. Within six months of this date, the company will remove all matter described in the notice from the whole of the areas described in the notice. Thereafter, the lower area shall be used solely for the storage of empty skips and the long wheeled based trailers. No full skips shall remain on site longer than a period of twenty-four hours. This is to cover the event that the refuse depot is closed when the full skip is collected. For the avoidance of doubt there shall be no more sorting of mixed loads in this area. The upper yard will be used solely for the parking of trucks in current working use and the power units used with the trailers. No other use will be countenanced. If the company has not complied within six months, the Committee shall have leave of this Court to enforce its notices forthwith.
Authorities
Britt -v- Buckinghamshire County Council (1964) 1 QB 77; (1963) 2 All ER 175
Town and Country Planning Act, 1947
Island Planning (Jersey) Law, 1964
Le Masurier -v- The Natural Beauties Committee (1958) 13 CR 138; (1951-58) TD 25, 182
IDC -v- Fairview Farm Ltd (1996) JLR 306 CofA
Cottignies -v- Housing Committee (1969) JJ 1149
Le Maistre -v- IDC (1980) JJ 1
Richard Gordon QC: "Judicial Review Law and Procedure" (1996) paras. 1-001, 2-033 and 6-009
Wightman -v- IDC (1963) JJ 315
Herrick -v- IDC (1984) JJ 103
IDC -v- Fairview Farm Ltd (1996) JLR 306
Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte -v- IDC (1992) JLR 70
Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law, 1961
Westminster Bank Ltd -v- Beverley Borough Council (1968) 2 All ER 104
Baker -v- Public Works Committee (1968) JJ 965
Gillian Robinson: Administrative Appeals; a hearing "de novo": Jersey Law Review Vol. 1 issue 3 (October 1997) p.232.
Housing Committee -v- Phantesie Investments Limited (1985-86) JLR 96 CofA
Mesch -v- Housing Committee (1998) JLR 369
Steven -v- Constable of St. Saviour (1991) JLR N-10
Rahman -v- Chase Bank (CI) Trust Co Ltd (1984) JJ 127
Parr -v- Jackson (1961) JJ 217, p228
Kingston-upon-Thames Royal London Borough Council -v- Secretary of State for the Environment and Anor. [1974] 1 All ER 193
Peak Park Joint Planning Board -v- Secretary of State for the Environment and Anor. [1979] P & CR 361
Penwith District Council -v- Secretary of State of the Environment and Anor. [1977] P & CR 269
Guillard -v- IDC (1969) JJ 1225
Desmond Heap: Outline and Planning Law (1982) pp.214-217