Meisels & Anor v The Secretary of State for Housing Communities And Local Government

Meisels & Anor v The Secretary of State for Housing Communities And Local Government

The Inspector was entitled to find that condition 2 was a condition precedent going to the heart of the permission, that there was no evidence of lawful commencement before expiry, that the built development was substantially different from the approved scheme, and that no lesser steps were put forward to remedy the breach. The Inspector's decision was rational, lawful, and adequately reasoned.

Parties
Claimant: Rabbi M Meisels and Mr D Meisels; 1st Defendant: The Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government; Interested Party: The London Borough of Hackney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (planning) / Judgment on Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Planning Permission, Conditions Precedent, Commencement of Development, Grounds of Appeal Under S 174(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Judicial Review of Inspector's Decision
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Planning Permission Conditions Precedent Commencement of Development Grounds of Appeal Under S 174(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Judicial Review of Inspector's Decision

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rabbi M Meisels and Mr D Meisels

Claimant

The Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government

1st Defendant

The London Borough of Hackney

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (planning) / Judgment on Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condition 2 of the planning permission was a condition precedent going to the heart of the permission
  2. 2 Whether development commenced before expiry of planning permission
  3. 3 Whether the development as built was so different from the approved scheme as to be unauthorised

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to find that condition 2 was a condition precedent going to the heart of the permission, that there was no evidence of lawful commencement before expiry, that the built development was substantially different from the approved scheme, and that no lesser steps were put forward to remedy the breach. The Inspector's decision was rational, lawful, and adequately reasoned.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed