Cases - Good v Epping Forest District Council
Record details
- Name
- Good v Epping Forest District Council
- Date
- [1993]
- Citation
- 3 PLR 135
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Planning control - Town and Country Planning Act 1971 -Town and Country Planning Act 1990
- Summary
-
Planning permission had been granted for the erection of a house on a farm for a pig man. It was subject to the usual agricultural occupancy condition. This was reinforced by a section 52 agreement (section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the predecessor to section 106 of the 1990 Act) which reiterated the condition but also provided that the house should not be sold away or otherwise alienated from the remainder of the application site. A subsequent purchaser, wishing to sell the house off for non-agricultural occupancy, sought a declaration that the agreement was void in law because it sought to do what could not have been imposed by a condition as it would have been struck down by the Secretary of State on appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the agreement was valid. The fact that the Secretary of State might set aside the requirements in a planning condition is a material fact, but does not render unlawful the decision to make the requirements or the making of the agreement.
The Court also considered whether a requirement which could not be validly incorporated in a planning condition could be incorporated in a section 52 agreement. This turns on the application of the Newbury criteria to planning obligations. It was accepted that criterion 1 (must be for a planning purpose) and criterion 3 (must not be Wednesbury unreasonable) must apply. However, it was held that criterion 2 (it must fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development) was not applicable. The powers under section 52 are distinct from those governing conditions.
'There would be little point in enacting section 52 ... if section 52 agreements were confined to those matters which could be dealt with by condition.' (Lord Justice Ralph Gibson)