Singhal UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Singhal UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

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

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
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (planning) / Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 289(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Leave to bring proceedings granted on ground (f) only; all other grounds refused.
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice Appeals, Permitted Development Rights, Material Considerations, Development Plan Policies, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Appeals Permitted Development Rights Material Considerations Development Plan Policies Judicial Review of Planning Decisions

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 5 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

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (planning) / Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 289(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in considering the availability and effect of permitted development rights under ground (f) of the enforcement appeal
  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 to properly understand and take into account the extent and effect of permitted development rights in relation to the outbuilding and rear extension when determining what steps were necessary to remedy the harm to amenity, thereby justifying the grant of leave to bring proceedings on that ground.

Court Disposition

Leave to bring proceedings granted on ground (f) only; all other grounds refused.

Orders

  • Leave to bring proceedings under section 289(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 granted on the ground relating to the Inspector's consideration of permitted development rights.
  • All other grounds of appeal refused.