Key Facts
- •The claimant challenges the New Forest National Park Authority's decision to grant planning permission (the 2021 variation) for variation of condition 2 of planning permission no. 18/00262.
- •The 2018 permission, which the 2021 variation purportedly amends, was allegedly not lawfully implemented within the three-year time limit.
- •Unlawful development on the site, acknowledged by an enforcement notice, significantly differs from the approved plans.
- •The claimant raises concerns about material changes, harm to amenity, and non-compliance with statutory duties.
Legal Principles
Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 applies only if the previous planning permission has been lawfully begun.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 73
For development to be considered begun, operations must be carried out pursuant to the planning permission; the test is objective.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 56; East Dunbartonshire Council v Secretary of State for Scotland and another [1998] Scot CS 46; Commercial Land Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2002] EWHC 1264 (Admin)
Section 73 can be used even if the proposed changes involve more than a minor material amendment, provided it does not alter the operative part of the planning permission.
Armstrong v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and another [2023] EWHC 176 (Admin); Finney v Welsh Ministers and others [2019] EWCA Civ 1868
Planning permissions are interpreted holistically, considering the planning purpose and all relevant documents.
UBB Waste Essex Ltd v Essex County Council [2019] EWHC 1924 (Admin)
Outcomes
The claimant's challenge succeeds on grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7.
The 2018 permission was not lawfully implemented, rendering the 2021 variation unlawful. The defendant failed to consider discrepancies between the plans and the as-built scheme, improperly removed a condition on the outbuilding, wrongly imposed conditions relating to unlawful development, unreasonably concluded that amendments were minor, and created unclear and unimplementable lighting conditions.