Romer, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor [2006] EWHC 3480 (Admin) (04 December 2006)

Romer, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor [2006] EWHC 3480 (Admin) (04 December 2006)

Both enforcement notices related to the same physical development and breach of planning control; section 171B(4)(b) applied, so the second notice was valid. The previous use as accommodation for workmen did not create immunity as it was not a single dwelling house nor a separate planning unit.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 3480 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Romer; First Respondent: First Secretary of State; Second Respondent: London Borough of Haringey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 171 B(4)(b), Immunity From Enforcement, Planning Unit, Change of Use
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Section 171 B(4)(b) Immunity From Enforcement Planning Unit Change of Use

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

Parties

Romer

Appellant

First Secretary of State

First Respondent

London Borough of Haringey

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 171B(4)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 applies to allow a 'second bite' enforcement notice against the same development
  2. 2 Whether the previous use of the workshop as residential accommodation created immunity from enforcement

Ratio Decidendi

Both enforcement notices related to the same physical development and breach of planning control; section 171B(4)(b) applied, so the second notice was valid. The previous use as accommodation for workmen did not create immunity as it was not a single dwelling house nor a separate planning unit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Appellant to pay First Defendant's costs of £6,044