Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, Company A, owns a large parcel of land comprising approximately 29 acres at a site referred to as Balkan Hill, Aberdyfi ("the Site"), acquired in 1988. The Defendant, Company B, established in 1995, became the local planning authority for the National Park including the Site in 1996. The dispute concerns the status of a planning permission granted in January 1967 by the Defendant's predecessor, Merioneth County Council ("the January 1967 Permission"), and a related court order made in 1987 ("the 1987 Order"). The 1987 Order declared the January 1967 Permission lawful, that development had begun, and could be lawfully completed at any future time.

The Plaintiff contends it is entitled to complete the remaining development permitted by the January 1967 Permission, arguing the Defendant is bound by the 1987 Order and that the permission remains capable of compliance. The Defendant contends the 1987 Order was made per incuriam and does not bind it, further arguing that subsequent developments pursuant to additional planning permissions ("Additional Permissions") have made full compliance with the January 1967 Permission impossible.

Following exchanges of counsel opinions and a pause in further development, the Plaintiff initiated the present claim in 2019 seeking declarations that the Defendant is bound by the 1987 Order, that the January 1967 Permission remains valid and extant, and that development under it may be completed except insofar as superseded by subsequent permissions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the 1987 judge was wrong in law to hold that the remainder of the development permitted by the January 1967 Permission could lawfully be completed at any time in the future.
2. Whether the Defendant remains bound by the declaration in the 1987 Order that the January 1967 Permission "may lawfully be completed at any time in the future," including:
1. Whether the 1987 Order binds the Defendant regardless of any legal error in its making.
2. Whether events since the 1987 Order mean that the development may no longer be lawfully completed, thus affecting the binding nature of the declaration.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The 1987 Order is binding on the Defendant and constitutes res judicata.
• The January 1967 Permission permits multiple independent acts of development, so subsequent Additional Permissions do not preclude completion of the remaining development.
• The arguments now advanced by the Defendant could have been raised in the 1987 proceedings but were not, and thus the issue is res judicata.

Defendant's Arguments

• The 1987 Order was made per incuriam and does not bind the Defendant as successor authority.
• Subsequent Additional Permissions have resulted in developments inconsistent with the January 1967 Permission, making full compliance physically impossible.
• Planning law requires that development be carried out fully in accordance with the permission; partial or substantial compliance is insufficient.
• Legal authorities establish that once a development inconsistent with an earlier permission is implemented, the earlier permission cannot be lawfully completed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Pilkington v Secretary of State for the Environment [1973] 1 WLR 1527	Establishes that multiple planning permissions for the same land may coexist, but implementation of one may render another incapable of lawful implementation if developments are inconsistent.	The court applied Pilkington to assess whether subsequent developments pursuant to Additional Permissions made completion of the January 1967 Permission impossible.
Hoveringham Gravels Ltd v Chiltern District Council (1977) 76 L.G.R. 533	Approves Pilkington, confirming that inconsistent planning permissions cannot both be implemented if one has been carried out.	Used to support the Defendant's argument that the January 1967 Permission cannot be completed due to subsequent inconsistent developments.
Pioneer Aggregates (U.K.) Ltd v Secretary of State [1985] AC 132	Confirms that multiple planning permissions may be inconsistent and that implementation of one may prevent lawful implementation of another.	Referenced to affirm the legal principle that planning permissions are permissions, not obligations, and physical impossibility bars lawful completion.
Sage v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] UKHL 22	Emphasizes a holistic approach: a development must be carried out fully in accordance with the permission; partial compliance renders the development unlawful.	The court considered Sage relevant to confirm that full compliance is necessary and that partial or substantial compliance is insufficient.
Singh v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 1621 (Admin)	Reinforces that a development must be fully implemented as permitted; if completion is impossible due to other developments, the whole development is unlawful.	Applied to support the Defendant's contention that the January 1967 Permission cannot now be completed lawfully due to subsequent developments.
F. Lucas & Sons Ltd v Dorking and Horley Rural District Council (1964) 17 P&CR 111	Where a planning permission authorizes independent acts of development, completion of one does not prevent completion of others.	The Plaintiff relied on Lucas to argue the January 1967 Permission allows multiple independent acts of development; the court found this exception unlikely to apply.
R v Ashford Borough Council, ex parte Shepway District Council [1998] EWHC Admin 488	Sets out principles for construction of planning permissions, including incorporation of applications and extrinsic evidence.	Used to analyse construction of the January 1967 Permission and Additional Permissions as variations rather than free-standing permissions.
Barnett v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWCA Civ 476	Modifies principles of construction for full detailed planning permissions, emphasizing interpretation in conjunction with approved plans.	Informed the court's approach to interpreting the Additional Permissions as modifications of the January 1967 Permission.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing planning permissions, focusing on whether the January 1967 Permission could be lawfully completed given subsequent developments. The court noted that while multiple planning permissions for the same land can coexist, implementation of one that is inconsistent with another may render the latter incapable of lawful completion, as established in Pilkington and subsequent cases.

The court distinguished the present case from the exception in Lucas, where a permission authorizes independent acts of development. The court found the January 1967 Permission constituted a coherent scheme for a housing estate, not discrete independent permissions, and thus required holistic compliance.

The Additional Permissions granted prior to 1987 were construed, consistent with the 1987 judge’s reasoning, as variations of the January 1967 Permission, justifying the 1987 Order's declarations. However, developments since 1987, authorized by later Additional Permissions, have materially departed from the Master Plan, particularly in the north-west part of the Site, making it physically impossible to complete the January 1967 Permission in full compliance with its terms.

The court rejected the Defendant’s submission that the 1987 Order was per incuriam, finding no basis to overturn the original judge’s conclusions regarding implementation and lawful completion as at 1987. However, the court held that the 1987 Order does not bind the Defendant indefinitely in light of changed factual circumstances, including physical impossibility of completion.

Accordingly, while the January 1967 Permission was valid and capable of completion at the time of the 1987 Order, it cannot now be lawfully completed due to subsequent developments. The court emphasized the necessity of full compliance with planning permissions, rejecting any notion of partial or substantial compliance as sufficient for lawful completion.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff's claim.

The court held that the January 1967 Permission cannot now be lawfully completed because subsequent developments pursuant to Additional Permissions have rendered full compliance physically impossible. While the 1987 Order correctly declared the position as at that time, it does not bind the Defendant indefinitely against changed circumstances. The decision means that any further development on the Site must be authorised by new planning permissions. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling applies the existing principles of planning law to the facts of this case.