Miaris v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor (Rev 1)

Miaris v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor (Rev 1)

An appeal under ground (f) that steps in an enforcement notice exceed what is necessary to remedy injury to amenity cannot be entertained on its merits when there is no appeal under ground (a) and the planning objections addressed by the step are not limited to injury to amenity. The Inspector did not err in law by refusing to consider the appellant's planning merits under ground (f).

Parties
Appellant: Stamatios Miaris; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Bath and North East Somerset Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Town and Country Planning Act, Appeal Grounds, Amenity, Planning Permission
Planning Law Enforcement Notice Town and Country Planning Act Appeal Grounds Amenity 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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stamatios Miaris

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Bath and North East Somerset Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appeal under ground (f) of section 174(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 can be entertained on the basis that steps in an enforcement notice exceed what is necessary to remedy injury to amenity, in the absence of an appeal under ground (a) seeking planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in law by refusing to consider the planning merits advanced by the appellant under ground (f)

Ratio Decidendi

An appeal under ground (f) that steps in an enforcement notice exceed what is necessary to remedy injury to amenity cannot be entertained on its merits when there is no appeal under ground (a) and the planning objections addressed by the step are not limited to injury to amenity. The Inspector did not err in law by refusing to consider the appellant's planning merits under ground (f).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed