Bramall v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2011] EWHC 1531 (Admin) (17 June 2011)

Bramall v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2011] EWHC 1531 (Admin) (17 June 2011)

The Inspector was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that the right to resume residential use of Pear Tree Cottage had been abandoned after 1973, given the extraordinary lapse of time, derelict condition, and lack of active steps to resume use, and did not err in law in his assessment of the 1969 decision or the owner's intentions.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1531 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Matthew Bramall; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Rother District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Appeal) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lawful Development Certificates, Abandonment of Use, Section 57(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning Permission for Change of Use
Planning Law Administrative Law Lawful Development Certificates Abandonment of Use Section 57(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Planning Permission for Change of Use

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Bramall

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Rother District Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Appeal) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right to resume residential use of Pear Tree Cottage had been abandoned
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in law in concluding abandonment
  3. 3 Whether the 1969 planning authority decision was material to abandonment

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that the right to resume residential use of Pear Tree Cottage had been abandoned after 1973, given the extraordinary lapse of time, derelict condition, and lack of active steps to resume use, and did not err in law in his assessment of the 1969 decision or the owner's intentions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Claimant to pay First Respondent's costs