Eatherley v London Borough of Camden & Anor

Eatherley v London Borough of Camden & Anor

The Council misdirected itself by failing to consider whether the engineering works required for the basement constituted a separate activity of substance from the enlargement, improvement, or alteration of the dwellinghouse. The planning committee should have assessed whether the engineering operations were a distinct activity requiring separate planning permission. As a result, the certificate of lawful development was quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Eatherley; Defendant: London Borough of Camden; Interested Party: James Ireland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; certificate of lawful development quashed
Legal Topics
Permitted Development Rights, Basement Development, Lawful Development Certificates, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Permitted Development Rights Basement Development Lawful Development Certificates Statutory Interpretation

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Eatherley

Claimant

London Borough of Camden

Defendant

James Ireland

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the construction of a basement under a dwellinghouse constitutes permitted development under Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO 2015
  2. 2 Whether substantial engineering operations required for basement construction are a separate activity of substance requiring planning permission
  3. 3 Whether the Council misdirected itself in granting a certificate of lawful development for the basement

Ratio Decidendi

The Council misdirected itself by failing to consider whether the engineering works required for the basement constituted a separate activity of substance from the enlargement, improvement, or alteration of the dwellinghouse. The planning committee should have assessed whether the engineering operations were a distinct activity requiring separate planning permission. As a result, the certificate of lawful development was quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; certificate of lawful development quashed

Orders

  • Judicial review granted
  • Certificate of lawful development granted to Mr Ireland quashed