Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30 (02 November 2022)
Citation:Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30 (02 November 2022).
Rule of thumb:What happens if there are 2 different sets of planning permission for the same plot of land? They are supposed to be construed to be in accordance with each other if possible, however, if they directly contradict each other, then the newer ones takes precedence.
Background facts:
The facts: in 1967 Snowdonia obtain planning permission from the local authority to build 401 new properties and a road system on a very large stretch of land that they owned. This was called the ‘master plan’. Snowdonia never got round to carrying out the massive 1967 Master Plan project of building all the 401 properties and road system on the development. In 1987 Snowdonia obtained a declaration from the Court that they could still carry out the 1967 ‘master-plan’ on the large stretch of land at any time in the future however. In 1988 Snowdonia sold the property to Hillside. However, Snowdonia did not sell their rights under their 1967 ‘Master plan’ planning permission. From 1988 onwards Hillside then began gradually developing the large stretch of property in the way that they saw fit. For some of the developments Hillside carried out they obtained no planning permission, and for other developments they carried out they obtained new planning permissions from the local authority. However, Hillside’s new developments on the land and new planning permissions contradicted Snowdoania’s 1967 ‘master plan’, which Snowdonia of course never sold to Hillside at the time when the land was sold.
Parties argued
Snowdonia then sought to take legal action against Hillside for breach of their 1967 ‘Master plan’ planning permission, which they technically still had the rights to. This matter went to Court to affirm how the legal rights related to this would be worked out. It invoked the principle of ‘successive planning permission’, namely, what happens if there are 2 different planning permissions for the same part of land which contradict each other. In the first sentence of the Judgment Lord Sales described the legal issue as this, ‘This appeal raises issues of importance in planning law about the relationship between successive grants of planning permission for development on the same land and, in particular, about the effect of implementing one planning permission on another planning permission relating to the same site’, Lord Sales at 1. Snowdonia argued that the older planning permission took precedence; Hillside argued that the newest planning permission took precedence.
Judgment:
The answer that the Court came up with for how successive planning permissions should interlink with each other was a clear one, and it was the same approach for if successive statutes contradict each other. The general legal principle of successive planning permissions was that (a) planning permissions for the same stretch of land should be construed to be in conjunction with each other if possible, (b) if there are minor contradictions then the new planning permission applies & takes precedence over the previous one, (c) however, if it becomes impossible to construe the 2 planning permissions together due to many fundamental contradictions, then the older planning permission becomes obsolete and unenforceable. Applying this principle of ‘successive planning permissions to be construed in conjunction with each only if it possible’ to the case at hand, the Court therefore held that new planning permission grants obtained by Hillside clearly contradicted Snowdonia’s 1967 Master Plan, and it was impossible for Hillside’s future developments to be carried out in conjunction with Snowdonia’s 1967 Master Plan, so the 1967 Master Plan was therefore obsolete and unenforceable. In short, Snowdonia no longer had any rights from their 1967 Master Plan, and their 1967 Master Plan was worthless. Hillside won the case and could carry out future works without any regard for the 1967 Master plan.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘100. … It is possible in principle for a local planning authority to grant a planning permission which approves a modification of such an entire scheme rather than constituting a separate permission referable just to part of the scheme. The Developer has failed to show, however, that the additional planning permissions under which development has been carried out on the Balkan Hill site since 1987 should be construed in this way. Therefore, that development is inconsistent with the 1967 permission and has had the effect that it is physically impossible to develop the Balkan Hill site in accordance with the Master Plan approved by the 1967 permission (as subsequently modified down to 1987)... This development also makes it physically impossible to develop the site in accordance with the Master Plan approved by the 1967 permission (as subsequently modified). The courts below were therefore right to dismiss the Developer’s claim and this appeal must also be dismissed’, Lord Sales
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.