Simpson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Simpson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The inspector was correct 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 requiring evaluation. The challenge to the inspector’s decision therefore fails.

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
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Material Change of Use, Planning Permission, Fall Back Position, Lawful Development Certificate
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Material Change of Use Planning Permission 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 4 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

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Appeal From Planning 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 ought to be granted for the mooring and residential use of a vessel

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was correct 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 requiring evaluation. The challenge to the inspector’s decision therefore fails.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed