Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2012] All ER (D) 88 (Oct)
Neutral Citation: [2012] EWHC 2686 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (London)

Walker J

Representation Richard Turney (instructed by Kingsley Smith LLP) for the appellant.
  Richard Honey (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
  Emmaline Lambert (instructed by the London Borough of Enfield) for the local authority.
Judgment Dates: 5 October 2012


Town and country planning - Permission for development - Retrospective planning permission - Appellant constructing building in breach of planning permission - Parties disputing permitted height based on plans - Appellant's application for retrospective planning permission being refused - Enforcement notice being issued - Local authority issuing variation notice - Appellant appealing against refusal of retrospective planning permission and enforcement notice - Inspector dismissing appeals - Appellant appealing - Whether variation notice rendering enforcement notice nullity - Whether inspector erring in finding on plan approved by local authority - Whether inspector's interpretation of planning permission being wrong in law - Whether inspector being required to consider features of building which differed from that required by enforcement notice - Whether inspector ought to have allowed appellant to contend 20 months required to comply with enforcement notice.

The Case

Town and country planning Permission for development. The proprietor of a development company breached planning controls. An inspector dismissed appeals against the refusal of retrospective planning permission and an enforcement notice. The Administrative Court found no factual or legal error in the inspector's finding on the approved plan and no error in not allowing the proprietor to appeal against the time for compliance with the enforcement notice. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeals against the inspector's decisions.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.