Singh v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

Singh v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

The Inspector did not err in law; the 2003 Permission could not be completed as approved due to physical changes from the 2005 Permission. The law requires strict compliance with the permission and plans, and any deviation, even if argued to be de minimis, requires further consent from the planning authority.

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 / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Certificates of Lawful Use or Development, Implementation of Planning Permissions, Impossibility in Planning Law, De Minimis Principle, Section 191 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Planning Law Administrative Law Certificates of Lawful Use or Development Implementation of Planning Permissions Impossibility in Planning Law De Minimis Principle Section 191 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 8 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 / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in concluding that the 2003 Permission was incapable of implementation and completion due to subsequent development under the 2005 Permission
  2. 2 Whether changes to the 2003 Permission required further consent or could be regarded as de minimis

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law; the 2003 Permission could not be completed as approved due to physical changes from the 2005 Permission. The law requires strict compliance with the permission and plans, and any deviation, even if argued to be de minimis, requires further consent from the planning authority.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed
  • Claimant to pay the First Defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £8,054.66