Djurberg v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 4137 (Admin) (12 December 2014)

Djurberg v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 4137 (Admin) (12 December 2014)

The inspector made no error of law in concluding that the previous pontoons were not lawful and not covered by the 2008 planning permission, as there was no evidence they existed at the relevant time. The inspector's approach to fallback positions and the implementation of planning permissions was correct. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 4137 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Myck Djurberg; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Listed Building, Conservation Area, Metropolitan Open Land, Planning Permission, Fallback Position, Heritage Asset, Judicial Review
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Listed Building Conservation Area Metropolitan Open Land Planning Permission Fallback Position +2 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Myck Djurberg

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in law in concluding that previous pontoons were unlawful and not covered by the 2008 planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to consider a material consideration regarding previous planning permission for pontoons
  3. 3 Whether the inspector erred in his approach to fallback positions and the implementation of planning permissions

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector made no error of law in concluding that the previous pontoons were not lawful and not covered by the 2008 planning permission, as there was no evidence they existed at the relevant time. The inspector's approach to fallback positions and the implementation of planning permissions was correct. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No remittal; inspector's decision stands; enforcement notice upheld as to pontoons B, C, and D; no error of law found.