Singhal UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2017] EWHC 946 (Admin) (03 May 2017)

Singhal UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2017] EWHC 946 (Admin) (03 May 2017)

There is an arguable case that the Inspector erred in law in his consideration of ground (f) by failing properly to understand and take into account the extent and effect of permitted development rights in respect of the outbuilding and rear extension when determining what steps were necessary to remedy the harm to amenity.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 946 (Admin)
Parties
Applicant: Singhal UK Limited; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: London Borough of Hounslow
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 289(6) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to bring proceedings granted on ground (f) only
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Permitted Development Rights, Material Considerations, Development Plan Policies
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Permitted Development Rights Material Considerations Development Plan Policies

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Singhal UK Limited

Applicant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

London Borough of Hounslow

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 289(6) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law regarding the consideration of permitted development rights under ground (f)
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to have regard to material considerations or had regard to immaterial considerations
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector applied the correct version of the development plan

Ratio Decidendi

There is an arguable case that the Inspector erred in law in his consideration of ground (f) by failing properly to understand and take into account the extent and effect of permitted development rights in respect of the outbuilding and rear extension when determining what steps were necessary to remedy the harm to amenity.

Court Disposition

Leave to bring proceedings granted on ground (f) only

Orders

  • Ms. Sackman to draft an appropriate order and seek Applicant's agreement to its terms