GJM Developments Ltd v Minister for P and E [2008] JRC 030 (25 February 2008)

GJM Developments Ltd v Minister for P and E [2008] JRC 030 (25 February 2008)

It is not a prerequisite for the exercise of the respondent's powers under Article 10(2) of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 that the false or misleading statement or representation be made knowingly or recklessly. The works required by the modification notice are proportionate and reasonable in planning terms, and financial consequences to the appellant are not material considerations for issuing the notice.

Citation
[2008] JRC 030
Parties
Applicant: Appellant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
25 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Planning Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
False or Misleading Statements in Planning Applications, Modification Notices, Statutory Interpretation, Proportionality of Enforcement, Material Planning Considerations
Administrative Law Planning Law False or Misleading Statements in Planning Applications Modification Notices Statutory Interpretation Proportionality of Enforcement Material Planning Considerations

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Applicant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is it a prerequisite for the exercise of powers under Article 10(2) of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 that a false or misleading statement or representation be made knowingly or recklessly?
  2. 2 Are the works required by the modification notice manifestly excessive given the extent of the misrepresentation?
  3. 3 Are financial consequences to the applicant material considerations in issuing a modification notice?

Ratio Decidendi

It is not a prerequisite for the exercise of the respondent's powers under Article 10(2) of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 that the false or misleading statement or representation be made knowingly or recklessly. The works required by the modification notice are proportionate and reasonable in planning terms, and financial consequences to the appellant are not material considerations for issuing the notice.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The modification notice requiring the appellant to set back the New House by 1.65 metres stands.