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

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

The inspector erred in law by failing to consider the obvious alternative of granting planning permission for the 2005 scheme and varying the enforcement notice accordingly, as required by the principles in Tapecrown and Moore. The inspector had the power to grant such permission if the 2005 scheme could be regarded as a 'part' of the development as built, which was a matter of planning judgment he failed to exercise.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Mahfooz Ahmed; Respondent/appellant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Interested Party: London Borough of Hackney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs allowed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Planning Permission, Grounds of Appeal, Variation of Enforcement Notice, Retrospective Planning Consent, Written Representations Procedure
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Planning Permission Grounds of Appeal Variation of Enforcement Notice Retrospective Planning Consent Written Representations Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mahfooz Ahmed

Appellant/respondent

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Respondent/appellant

London Borough of Hackney

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in law by failing to consider an 'obvious alternative' of granting planning permission for a previously approved scheme under section 177 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and varying the enforcement notice accordingly.
  2. 2 Whether the inspector had the power to grant planning permission for the 2005 scheme as a 'part' of the development as built.
  3. 3 Whether the inspector was required to consider alternatives not expressly advanced under ground (a) but raised under ground (f).

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector erred in law by failing to consider the obvious alternative of granting planning permission for the 2005 scheme and varying the enforcement notice accordingly, as required by the principles in Tapecrown and Moore. The inspector had the power to grant such permission if the 2005 scheme could be regarded as a 'part' of the development as built, which was a matter of planning judgment he failed to exercise.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs allowed

Orders

  • Secretary of State's appeal dismissed; High Court order upheld remitting matter to inspector for reconsideration.
  • Cross-appeal allowed; Secretary of State to pay Mr Ahmed's costs in the agreed sum of £22,700 in respect of the High Court proceedings.