Makanjuola v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Rev 1) [2013] EWHC 3528 (Admin) (14 November 2013)

Makanjuola v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Rev 1) [2013] EWHC 3528 (Admin) (14 November 2013)

The Inspector erred in law by requiring demolition of the entire single storey dwelling house, including works (stage 2) undertaken for a different and lawful use, which were immune from enforcement. Only stage 3 constituted the unlawful development. The appeal was allowed, the Inspector's decision quashed, and stage 2 declared immune from enforcement action.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3528 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: David Makanjuola; 1st Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; 2nd Respondent: Waltham Forest Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Enforcement Notice (planning) / High Court (administrative Court) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Inspector's decision quashed; declaration that stage 2 is immune from enforcement; remittal for fresh decision on remedy for stage 3.
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Planning Permission, Material Change of Use, Immunity From Enforcement, Excessive Enforcement, Amenity, Highway Safety
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Planning Permission Material Change of Use Immunity From Enforcement Excessive Enforcement Amenity +1 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Makanjuola

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

1st Respondent

Waltham Forest Borough Council

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Enforcement Notice (planning) / High Court (administrative Court) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by requiring demolition of the entire single storey dwelling house including works undertaken for a lawful use
  2. 2 Whether stage 2 of the development was immune from enforcement action
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector correctly identified the breach of planning control

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in law by requiring demolition of the entire single storey dwelling house, including works (stage 2) undertaken for a different and lawful use, which were immune from enforcement. Only stage 3 constituted the unlawful development. The appeal was allowed, the Inspector's decision quashed, and stage 2 declared immune from enforcement action.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Inspector's decision quashed; declaration that stage 2 is immune from enforcement; remittal for fresh decision on remedy for stage 3.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Inspector's decision quashed