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

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

The Inspector lawfully concluded that the 2008 Permission was not implemented because the works undertaken were materially different from the permitted scheme and Condition 3, which went to the heart of the permission, was not complied with; the enforcement notice was valid as it was not defective on its face and the Council's reasons were maintained in substance.

Parties
Claimant: Louis Silver; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government; Second Defendant: London Borough of Camden; Interested Party: Barrie Tankel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Statutory Appeal (planning) / Judgment After Hearing of S.288 Application and Rolled Up S.289 Appeal
Outcome
Claim dismissed
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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Silver

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

First Defendant

London Borough of Camden

Second Defendant

Barrie Tankel

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Statutory Appeal (planning) / Judgment After Hearing of S.288 Application and Rolled Up S.289 Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law regarding the fall-back position of the 2008 planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in law in finding the enforcement notice valid and not a nullity

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector lawfully concluded that the 2008 Permission was not implemented because the works undertaken were materially different from the permitted scheme and Condition 3, which went to the heart of the permission, was not complied with; the enforcement notice was valid as it was not defective on its face and the Council's reasons were maintained in substance.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application under s.288 refused
  • Permission to appeal under s.289 granted but appeal dismissed