Akhtar v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2017] EWHC 1840 (Admin) (19 July 2017)

Akhtar v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2017] EWHC 1840 (Admin) (19 July 2017)

PINS acted lawfully and within its discretion in refusing to accept late representations; the appellant was aware of the timetable and had no good reason for the delay; the second enforcement notice was valid under s.171B(4)(b) despite the first notice being a nullity; the Inspector was entitled to decide on the evidence before him and there was no error of law.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1840 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Mohammed Shahid Akhtar; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government; Second Respondent: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal Under S.289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice Appeals, Written Representations Procedure, Time Limits for Submissions, Ground (d) Appeals, Nullity of Enforcement Notices
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Appeals Written Representations Procedure Time Limits for Submissions Ground (d) Appeals Nullity of Enforcement Notices

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Shahid Akhtar

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

First Respondent

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PINS acted unlawfully in refusing to accept late representations submitted by the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the enforcement notice was a nullity due to prior defective notice
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector erred in law in determining the immunity period and evidence

Ratio Decidendi

PINS acted lawfully and within its discretion in refusing to accept late representations; the appellant was aware of the timetable and had no good reason for the delay; the second enforcement notice was valid under s.171B(4)(b) despite the first notice being a nullity; the Inspector was entitled to decide on the evidence before him and there was no error of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal under s.289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed
  • No error of law found in PINS or Inspector's decisions