Approach to costs
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always aim to approach
legal work in a financially-disciplined way. We offer
competitive rates. Our charging approach is both transparent
and geared to the options open to our clients. Our
solicitors generally charge by reference to time spent but
we can often agree fixed fees for specific work or in some
cases risk-adjusted funding structures.
|
Send us a summary of your circumstances and objectives for a quick response. |
|
 |
PLANNING - GREEN BELT : PLANNING PERMISSION : PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE
: REASONS : DEPTH OF REASONING REQUIRED BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY GRANT OF
PLANNING PERMISSION : ADEQUACY OF REASONS GIVEN FOR GRANT : art.22 TOWN
AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 1995
A summary decision of a local authority that it was appropriate to
grant planning permission for a development in the green belt was not
required to contain a comparable depth of reasoning as that of a
planning inspector or a decision of the Secretary of State for Local
Government and Communities.
The appellant (S) appealed against a decision((2010) EWHC 444 (Admin)
upholding the respondent local authority's decision to grant the
interested party (B) planning permission for development in the green
belt. B had applied to the local authority for planning permission for
the erection of an agricultural machinery workshop in the green belt.
The local authority received a number of objections to the development
from local residents, including S. A planning inspector informed a
planning sub-committee of the local authority that planning policy
guidance contained in the local authority's urban development plan
stated that development in the greenbelt was inappropriate development
and that planning permission for such development should only be
granted in very exceptional circumstances. The planning inspector's
report went on state, with reasons, why he believed it was appropriate
to grant planning permission. Planning permission was ultimately
granted on the grounds that B had demonstrated the specialist nature of
his operation, the operational requirements of customers, the
difficulties of remaining in his present location and the lack of other
suitable alternative sites. It was stated in the committee's report
that those factors comprised very special circumstances to justify the
inappropriate development. S later unsuccessfully sought judicial
review of the grant of planning permission. S contended that the judge
had erred in rejecting that (1) the sub-committee had failed to
properly apply the planning policy guidance and had not given adequate
reasons for its decision; (2) the sub-committee's decision was not
Wednesbury unreasonable.
HELD: (1) It was clear that the local authority had properly applied
the planning policy guidance and given adequate reasons for its
decision. Under the Town and Country Planning (General Development
Procedure) Order 1995 art.22, a summary of reasons for a grant of
planning permission was all that was required of a local authority. The
sufficiency of reasons required in such a summary was not to be equated
with that required in a decision of the planning inspector or the
Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities as both of
those decisions were expected, albeit not in a vacuum, to stand alone.
Local authority summary reasons for a grant of planning permission were
by their very nature summary and it was necessary to have regard to the
process that accompanied or preceded the summary, such as a planning
inspector's decision. Where a local authority agreed with a planning
inspector's decision it would be expected that the local authority's
reasons would be brief but where it disagreed fuller reasons would be
expected, R (on the application of Ling (Bridlington) Ltd) v East
Riding of Yorkshire Council (2006) EWHC 1604 (Admin), (2007) JPL 396
applied. In the instant case the local authority agreed with the
planning inspector's report, which referred to the planning guidance,
and the test to be applied to development in the green belt. There was
no reason to suppose that the local authority was unaware of the test
and had disagreed with it. Further the reasons given for the grant of
planning permission were sufficient. (2) It could not be said that the
factors relied upon by the local authority for the grant of planning
permission were irrational. In effect the submission was no more than
that the local authority had given undue weight to those four factors.
The weight to be given to those factors was for the local authority.
Appeal dismissed
R (on the application of SIRAJ) v KIRKLEES METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL (2010)
Lawtel: 25.10.10
|
|
Accessibility
We take instructions from UK & international clients. Our independent lawyers are available by email, telephone & fax. With central Bristol offices we are just 90 minutes from London by road or rail and 15 minutes from Bristol International Airport. We can travel to meetings if required.
|
Independent approach
We are an independent professional law firm here, not a legal factory turning out mass-produced products. In our experience, determined case-handling is more likely to produce effective results.
|
Turnaround time
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. look to input not only
careful legal work and precision but also the determination
to keep matters moving. They aim to work in clients' real
interests with energy and pragmatism.
|
Communication skills
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always try to open up the
legal process by giving advice and explaining options to
clients in a concise and straightforward way, identifying
clear courses of action whatever the technical or legal
complexities of the subject. |
|
