Ahmed v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS
- LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Environmental Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case concerns a planning enforcement notice issued by the London Borough of Hackney against Mr. Ahmed's land. The enforcement notice required removal of a building not compliant with approved plans. Ahmed's appeal was initially dismissed, then allowed by the High Court without any decision on costs. The Secretary of State appealed this decision, arguing that the inspector did not err in law. The court held that the inspector did err by failing to consider the obvious alternative of granting planning permission for the 2005 scheme and modifying the enforcement notice. The High Court's decision was upheld, and costs were awarded to Mr. Ahmed.
Judgment
Lord Justice Richards :
This case concerns a planning enforcement notice issued by the London Borough of Hackney (“the council”) in respect of land at 103-105 Stoke Newington High Street, London. Mr Ahmed, the owner of the land, appealed to the Secretary of State under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) against the notice. By a decision dated 31 March 2011 an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State dismissed the appeal. Mr Ahmed appealed to the High Court under section 289 of the 1990 Act against that decision. By an order dated 16 July 2013 Mr Ben Emmerson QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, allowed the appeal but made no order as to the costs of the appeal. The Secretary of State now appeals to this court, with permission granted by Sullivan LJ, against the deputy judge’s order in so far as it allowed Mr Ahmed’s appeal to the High Court. There is a separate application by Mr Ahmed for permission to appeal against the deputy judge’s order with regard to costs. Sullivan LJ ordered that application to be listed with the hearing of the main appeal but it has turned out not to be opposed. I deal with it briefly at the end of this judgment.
The question in the main appeal is whether the inspector erred in law on the enforcement notice appeal by failing to consider an “obvious alternative” in accordance with the principles discussed in Tapecrown Ltd v First Secretary of State [2006] EWCA Civ 1744 , [2007] 2 P&CR 7 (“ Tapecrown ”) and Moore v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] JPL 192 (“ Moore ”). The “obvious alternative” relied on is the grant of planning permission for a scheme previously authorised, departure from which had resulted in the breach of planning control that was the subject of the enforcement notice.
The legislative framework
By section 171A(1)(a) of the 1990 Act, carrying out development without the required planning permission constitutes a breach of planning control.
Section 172 empowers the local planning authority to issue an enforcement notice where it appears to them that there has been a breach of planning control and that it is expedient to issue the notice. Section 173 is concerned with the contents and effect of a notice and provides in particular:
“173 … (3) An enforcement notice shall specify the steps which the authority require to be taken, or the activities which the authority require to cease, in order to achieve, wholly or p