1998/103 - Bower v Planning and Environment Committee [1998] UR 103 (22 May 1998)

1998/103 - Bower v Planning and Environment Committee [1998] UR 103 (22 May 1998)

The appellant failed to demonstrate that the Committee's decision was unreasonable; there was no evidence of valid consent for the works, the Committee acted within its statutory powers, followed proper procedure, and the enforcement order was justified by the unauthorised development.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] UR 103
Parties
Appellant: John Arthur Burnett Bower; Respondent: Planning and Environment Committee
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
22 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Planning Appeal / Appeal From Enforcement Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Retrospective Planning Consent, Unauthorised Development, Procedural Fairness, Reasonableness of Administrative Decision
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Retrospective Planning Consent Unauthorised Development Procedural Fairness Reasonableness of Administrative Decision

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Arthur Burnett Bower

Appellant

Planning and Environment Committee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Appeal / Appeal From Enforcement Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Planning and Environment Committee's enforcement order was unreasonable in all the circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had obtained valid consent for the development
  3. 3 Whether the Committee followed proper procedure in issuing the enforcement notice

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to demonstrate that the Committee's decision was unreasonable; there was no evidence of valid consent for the works, the Committee acted within its statutory powers, followed proper procedure, and the enforcement order was justified by the unauthorised development.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal rejected
  • No order as to costs