Makanjuola v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Rev 1)

Makanjuola v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Rev 1)

The Inspector found that stages 1 and 2 of the development were undertaken for lawful purposes and were not integral to the unlawful use created by stage 3. Therefore, enforcement action requiring demolition of the entirety of the single storey dwelling house, including stages 1 and 2, was excessive and in error. Only stage 3 constituted unlawful development subject to enforcement. The appeal was allowed and the decision quashed, with stage 2 declared immune from enforcement action.

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
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / High Court Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Inspector's decision quashed; stage 2 declared immune from enforcement action; matter remitted for reconsideration by a fresh Inspector; no remittal for ground (a) appeal.
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Planning Permission, Material Change of Use, Immunity From Enforcement, Grounds of Appeal Under S.174, Remedies for Breach of Planning Control
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Planning Permission Material Change of Use Immunity From Enforcement Grounds of Appeal Under S.174 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 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

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / High Court Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by requiring demolition of the entire single storey dwelling house, including parts immune from enforcement action
  2. 2 Whether stages 1 and 2 of the development were lawful and immune from enforcement
  3. 3 Whether only stage 3 required planning permission and enforcement action

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector found that stages 1 and 2 of the development were undertaken for lawful purposes and were not integral to the unlawful use created by stage 3. Therefore, enforcement action requiring demolition of the entirety of the single storey dwelling house, including stages 1 and 2, was excessive and in error. Only stage 3 constituted unlawful development subject to enforcement. The appeal was allowed and the decision quashed, with stage 2 declared immune from enforcement action.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Inspector's decision quashed; stage 2 declared immune from enforcement action; matter remitted for reconsideration by a fresh Inspector; no remittal for ground (a) appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Inspector's decision quashed