Williams v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 958 (26 July 2013)

Williams v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 958 (26 July 2013)

The High Court judge erred in law by going behind the Inspector's unchallenged findings of fact, misconstruing the planning permission and enforcement notice, and adopting an impermissible approach to the construction of those documents. The enforcement notice was not defective, the requirement to demolish did not exceed what was necessary to remedy the breach, and the Inspector's reasons were adequate. The Inspector's decision should be restored.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 958
Parties
Respondent: Anthony Williams; First Appellant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Appellant: Chiltern District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
Appeals allowed, cross-appeal dismissed, High Court order set aside, Inspector's decision restored.
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Planning Permission, Green Belt, Conversion Vs New Building, Remedies for Breach of Planning Control
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Planning Permission Green Belt Conversion Vs New Building Remedies for Breach of Planning Control

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Williams

Respondent

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Appellant

Chiltern District Council

Second Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the enforcement notice was defective for not including demolition as part of the breach of planning control
  2. 2 Whether requiring demolition exceeded what was necessary to remedy the breach
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to give adequate reasons for his decision

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court judge erred in law by going behind the Inspector's unchallenged findings of fact, misconstruing the planning permission and enforcement notice, and adopting an impermissible approach to the construction of those documents. The enforcement notice was not defective, the requirement to demolish did not exceed what was necessary to remedy the breach, and the Inspector's reasons were adequate. The Inspector's decision should be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed, cross-appeal dismissed, High Court order set aside, Inspector's decision restored.

Orders

  • Set aside the Deputy Judge's order.
  • Restore the Inspector's decision requiring demolition of the new building.