Silver v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 2729 (Admin) (01 August 2014)

Silver v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 2729 (Admin) (01 August 2014)

The Inspector lawfully concluded that the 2008 permission was not implemented because the works undertaken were materially different from the approved scheme and were carried out in breach of a condition precedent that went to the heart of the permission. The enforcement notice was valid as its reasons were sufficient and maintained in substance, and any alleged defects did not render it a nullity.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2729 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Louis Silver; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government; Second Defendant: The London Borough of Camden; Interested Party: Barrie Tankel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (planning) / High Court Judgment on S.288 and S.289 TCPA 1990 Applications
Outcome
Claim dismissed; permission to appeal granted but appeal dismissed on merits.
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notices, Planning Permission, Commencement of Development, Conditions Precedent, Fall Back Position, Judicial Review, Statutory Appeal
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notices Planning Permission Commencement of Development Conditions Precedent Fall Back Position Judicial Review +1 more

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Silver

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

First Defendant

The London Borough of Camden

Second Defendant

Barrie Tankel

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (planning) / High Court Judgment on S.288 and S.289 TCPA 1990 Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2008 planning permission was lawfully implemented and constituted a valid fall-back position
  2. 2 Whether the enforcement notice was invalid or a nullity due to defective reasons or irrationality

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector lawfully concluded that the 2008 permission was not implemented because the works undertaken were materially different from the approved scheme and were carried out in breach of a condition precedent that went to the heart of the permission. The enforcement notice was valid as its reasons were sufficient and maintained in substance, and any alleged defects did not render it a nullity.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; permission to appeal granted but appeal dismissed on merits.

Orders

  • Application under s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 refused.
  • Appeal under s.289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed.