Planning consultancyBacked by the UK's leading planning resource
Planning consultancyBacked by the UK's leading planning resource
Browse 3 cases in the Planning Geek Case Law Library concerning Section 96A.
Oval Estates explains why adding phasing after commencement did not retrospectively reduce a CIL liability which had already arisen for an unphased development.
Lambeth v SSHCLG is the High Court authority confirming that a revised CIL Liability Notice or Demand Notice does not wipe out late-payment surcharges already incurred. Liability and payment dates arise under the CIL Regulations, not from the notices themselves.
Dennis v Southwark is an important Planning Court case on section 96A, severability and large phased permissions. The court held that adding the word ‘severable’ materially enlarged the rights granted by the outline permission and could not be done as a non-material amendment.
