Bramall v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Bramall v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that the right to resume residential use of Pear Tree Cottage had been abandoned after 1973, having regard to the long period of non-use, the deteriorated condition of the building, and the intermittent and equivocal intentions of the owners. The Inspector did not err in law in his approach to the 1969 decision, the reasons for non-use, or the evidence of expenditure. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Matthew Bramall; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Rother District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abandonment of Use, Lawful Development Certificate, Resumption of Use After Time Limited Planning Permission, Interpretation of Section 57(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Planning Law Administrative Law Abandonment of Use Lawful Development Certificate Resumption of Use After Time Limited Planning Permission Interpretation of Section 57(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Bramall

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Rother District Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right to resume residential use of Pear Tree Cottage had been abandoned
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in law in concluding abandonment
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to consider relevant evidence or misapplied the law

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that the right to resume residential use of Pear Tree Cottage had been abandoned after 1973, having regard to the long period of non-use, the deteriorated condition of the building, and the intermittent and equivocal intentions of the owners. The Inspector did not err in law in his approach to the 1969 decision, the reasons for non-use, or the evidence of expenditure. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed
  • Claimant to pay First Defendant’s costs