There is no express power in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a local planning authority (LPA) to formally withdraw a planning application made by a third party applicant. However, certain LPAs have developed a practice of treating certain applications as formally withdrawn

When a local planning authority (LPA) issues a consent, it becomes functus officio so one cannot withdraw/alter the permission (even if issued mistakenly) without judicially reviewing its own decision—see R (on the application of Carroll) v South Somerset District Council. Logically therefore, if an LPA resolves to refuse to grant permission and then issues a notice of refusal, this would be a similar legal act to a grant. However, rather than challenging it by way of judicial

There is no reason in principle for different but connected sites to be shown as part of a planning application including where one of them will only be used temporarily during part or all of the works associated with the development forming the application. Locating the land(s) affected by proposed works is an essential part of considering the application. The Town and Country Planning (Development

A rent repayment order (RRO) is an order governed by Part 2 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (HPA 2016), having originally been introduced in respect of the failure to licence houses in multiple occupation by the Housing Act 2004. HPA 2016 expands significantly the scope of RROs. HPA 2016, s 40 confers power on the First-tier Tribunal to make an RRO where a landlord has committed a specified offence. By HPA 2016, s 40(2), an RRO is an order

There are two considerations for whether planning permission is required for the use of an outbuilding within a residential curtilage: • whether the use constitutes a material change of use, and • whether the outbuilding itself requires planning permission Although in this case the outbuilding has been erected under permitted development rights, there are conditions attached to the use of any buildings erected under permitted development. This is considered in further detail below. The question of the use of the outbuilding is regulated by section 55(2)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which states that planning permission is not required for ‘the use of any buildings or other land within the curtilage of a dwelling house for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house’. What is incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling

As outlined in the extract in Easements; in general: Halsbury's Laws of England; in general, a lease of land, or of land and buildings, made after 31 December 1881 includes, without express mention, all easements appertaining or reputed to

Section 74 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002) provides that: ‘(1) The persons who are entitled to be members of a company which is a RTM company in relation to premises are— (a) qualifying tenants of flats contained in the premises, and (b) from the date on which it acquires the right to manage (referred to in this Chapter as the “acquisition date”), landlords under leases of the whole or any part of the premises.’ CLRA

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) grants leaseholders, amongst other things, the right to add a 90-year term to their existing lease at a peppercorn rent provided that the leaseholder meets certain qualifying requirements. The right is individual to the leaseholder, so does not need collective action by other leaseholders in the building. Provided the necessary formalities are complied with, the landlord is compelled to grant a lease extension. Where there are disagreements, such as in respect of the premium due to the landlord as a result of the lease extension,

A notice pursuant to sections 8 or 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) must be served in order to recover possession of a property let on an assured shorthold tenancy (AST), followed by possession proceedings. Both sections specify that the relevant notice must be served on the tenant by a landlord or joint landlord. HA

Under section 324 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) a member of a company is entitled to appoint another person as their proxy to exercise all or any of their rights to attend and to speak and vote at a general meeting of the company. CA 2006, s 318(2) states that, subject to the provisions of the company’s articles, two qualifying persons present at a meeting are a quorum, unless…‘(b) each is a qualifying person only because he is appointed as proxy of a member in relation to the meeting, and they are proxies of the same member’. A ‘qualifying person’ means a member of the company or a person appointed as proxy of a member in relation to the meeting. Therefore, the statute clearly prohibits the quorum being comprised entirely of proxies of the same member. It appears,

The Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) contains provisions enabling an offeror, following a takeover offer, to acquire shares in the target company held by non-accepting shareholders (CA 2006, ss 974-991). These statutory provisions apply to both public and private UK companies wherever there is a 'takeover offer' as defined by the CA 2006. There is no requirement for the offer to be regulated by the Takeover Code (Code). They therefore do not have any relevance to takeovers structured as schemes of arrangement where an offeror will acquire 100% control once the scheme becomes effective. The exercise of squeeze-out rights by an offeror is dependent on an offeror

A majority shareholder in a company has limited options under English law to force a minority shareholder to transfer their shares: they must rely on the statutory mechanism of squeeze-out or a scheme of arrangement to effect the transfer or, in a worst-case scenario, resort to liquidating the company. For this reason, a majority shareholder in a company will typically contract with any minority shareholders to gain these rights, using suitably drafted shareholders’ agreements and/or bespoke articles of association. This Q&A assumes that no shares in the company in question are publicly traded. Squeeze-out: compulsory acquisition of shares under the Companies Act 2006 Where a proposed buyer makes a takeover offer (as defined in sections 974–976 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006)) for shares in a company, CA 2006 provides the buyer with a right to acquire the shares held by those minority shareholders who have not accepted the offer (known