Simpson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2011] EWHC 283 (Admin) (18 February 2011)

Simpson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2011] EWHC 283 (Admin) (18 February 2011)

The inspector was entitled to reject the fall-back argument because there was no evidence before him as to the nature or likelihood of the alleged alternative use, so it was not a material consideration. The challenge to the inspector's decision fails.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 283 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Martin Simpson; First Respondent: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Medway Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Planning Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Appeal From Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Planning Permission, Material Change of Use, Fall Back Position, Lawful Development Certificate
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Planning Permission Material Change of Use Fall Back Position Lawful Development Certificate

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Simpson

Appellant

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Medway Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Appeal From Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in failing to take into account a material consideration (the fall-back position) when determining if planning permission should be granted for the mooring of vessels and residential use.

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled to reject the fall-back argument because there was no evidence before him as to the nature or likelihood of the alleged alternative use, so it was not a material consideration. The challenge to the inspector's decision fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed