Esther Gurvits & Anor v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

Esther Gurvits & Anor v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

The Inspector's findings regarding the use and amalgamation of the outbuilding were properly based on the evidence, including oral testimony; consideration of permitted development rights was relevant to the determination of the ground (c) appeal; the enforcement notice did not unlawfully abrogate statutory rights, as such rights are preserved by law and do not require explicit reference in the notice.

Parties
Appellant: Esther Gurvits; Appellant: Joseph Gurvits; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Respondent: London Borough of Barnet
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Material Change of Use, Permitted Development Rights, Grounds of Appeal, Mansi Principle
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Material Change of Use Permitted Development Rights Grounds of Appeal Mansi 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esther Gurvits

Appellant

Joseph Gurvits

Appellant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Respondent

London Borough of Barnet

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to have regard to material evidence regarding use of the land
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector took into account immaterial considerations regarding permitted development rights
  3. 3 Whether the enforcement notice unlawfully abrogated existing lawful use rights by retaining certain requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's findings regarding the use and amalgamation of the outbuilding were properly based on the evidence, including oral testimony; consideration of permitted development rights was relevant to the determination of the ground (c) appeal; the enforcement notice did not unlawfully abrogate statutory rights, as such rights are preserved by law and do not require explicit reference in the notice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; enforcement notice upheld with requirements as varied by the Inspector.