Fidler v First Secretary of State & Anor

Fidler v First Secretary of State & Anor

Notice I was not a valid second bite notice under s.171B(4)(b) because it went wider in substance than the earlier notices and targeted additional facts, falling outside the scope of Jarmain; the inspector erred in law in treating it as such. All other grounds of challenge to the inspector's decision fail.

Parties
Appellant: Robert Fidler; First Respondent: First Secretary of State; Second Respondent: Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal Under Ss.288 and 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Appeal allowed on the second bite issue; all other grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notices, Material Change of Use, Certificate of Lawful Use, Second Bite Notices, Deemed Planning Permission
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notices Material Change of Use Certificate of Lawful Use Second Bite Notices Deemed Planning Permission

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Fidler

Appellant

First Secretary of State

First Respondent

Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal Under Ss.288 and 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Notice I was a valid 'second bite' enforcement notice under s.171B(4)(b)
  2. 2 Whether there was a material change of use of the land
  3. 3 Whether commercial uses had become lawful by passage of time

Ratio Decidendi

Notice I was not a valid second bite notice under s.171B(4)(b) because it went wider in substance than the earlier notices and targeted additional facts, falling outside the scope of Jarmain; the inspector erred in law in treating it as such. All other grounds of challenge to the inspector's decision fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed on the second bite issue; all other grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • Decision of the inspector to uphold Notice I quashed; further submissions on relief to be heard.