Ioannou v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

Ioannou v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

The Inspector failed to consider whether the power under s173(4)(b) to remedy injury to amenity could be used to bring about the three-flat scheme, and did not address whether the Wheatcroft principle precluded such a variation. This was a material error of law. The Inspector's reasoning was legally deficient for not considering all relevant powers, and the appeal must be allowed.

Parties
Appellant: Christakis Ioannou; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: London Borough of Enfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice Appeal, Planning Permission, Variation of Enforcement Notice, Remedial Powers, Amenity Injury, Wheatcroft Principle
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Appeal Planning Permission Variation of Enforcement Notice Remedial Powers Amenity Injury Wheatcroft Principle

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christakis Ioannou

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

London Borough of Enfield

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under S289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector had power to grant permission for a three-flat scheme on an enforcement notice appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to consider the full extent of his powers under s173(4)(b) Town and Country Planning Act 1990
  3. 3 Whether the Wheatcroft principle precluded granting permission for a materially different scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector failed to consider whether the power under s173(4)(b) to remedy injury to amenity could be used to bring about the three-flat scheme, and did not address whether the Wheatcroft principle precluded such a variation. This was a material error of law. The Inspector's reasoning was legally deficient for not considering all relevant powers, and the appeal must be allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter to be remitted for reconsideration by the Inspector; terms of relief to be determined after hearing counsel