Kulah v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor [2021] EWHC 3028 (Admin) (15 November 2021)

Kulah v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor [2021] EWHC 3028 (Admin) (15 November 2021)

The Inspector lawfully and rationally applied the GPDO 2015 and Technical Guidance in determining that the eaves height of the side extension exceeded that of the existing dwellinghouse, and there was no evidence of eaves of different heights. The Inspector was entitled to give little weight to the fall-back position advanced by the appellant, as it was not realistically available under permitted development rights. No legal error or procedural impropriety was established.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3028 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Olgun Kulah; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: London Borough of Waltham Forest
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Planning Statutory Appeal Under Section 289 TCPA 1990 / High Court Appeal From Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Permitted Development Rights, Enforcement Notice, Eaves Height Measurement, Judicial Review Principles, Fall Back Position in Planning
Planning Law Administrative Law Permitted Development Rights Enforcement Notice Eaves Height Measurement Judicial Review Principles Fall Back Position in Planning

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olgun Kulah

Appellant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

London Borough of Waltham Forest

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Statutory Appeal Under Section 289 TCPA 1990 / High Court Appeal From Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in assessing eaves height under the GPDO 2015
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to consider the correct fall-back position for permitted development
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's decision was irrational or procedurally improper

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector lawfully and rationally applied the GPDO 2015 and Technical Guidance in determining that the eaves height of the side extension exceeded that of the existing dwellinghouse, and there was no evidence of eaves of different heights. The Inspector was entitled to give little weight to the fall-back position advanced by the appellant, as it was not realistically available under permitted development rights. No legal error or procedural impropriety was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.