Singh v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2010] EWHC 1621 (Admin) (12 February 2010)

Singh v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2010] EWHC 1621 (Admin) (12 February 2010)

The Inspector was correct in law to find that the 2003 Permission could not be completed due to physical impossibility caused by the 2005 Permission development, and that the Claimant could not lawfully implement the 2003 Permission without further consent from the planning authority.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1621 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Melap Singh; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Sandwell Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Application) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Certificates of Lawful Use or Development, Planning Permissions, Impossibility of Completion, De Minimis Principle
Planning Law Administrative Law Certificates of Lawful Use or Development Planning Permissions Impossibility of Completion De Minimis Principle

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melap Singh

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Sandwell Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Application) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2003 planning permission could lawfully be completed given subsequent development under the 2005 permission
  2. 2 Whether changes to the 2003 permission were de minimis and could be implemented without further consent

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was correct in law to find that the 2003 Permission could not be completed due to physical impossibility caused by the 2005 Permission development, and that the Claimant could not lawfully implement the 2003 Permission without further consent from the planning authority.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Claimant to pay First Defendant's costs, summarily assessed at £8,054.66
  • No order for costs in relation to Second Defendant