The developer of a sixth-floor addition to a five-storey London apartment block has failed in its fourth appeal against an inspector’s order for demolition of part of the works.
The High Court has backed the inspector’s ruling that work commenced on the site, in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea, did not comply with planning consent and therefore did not amount to actual commencement of the scheme.
Planning consent for the extension was granted in 1983, on condition that the works were started prior to 11 December 1988.
Following the erection of two walls, the local authority failed to determine a lawful development application brought by the developer. On appeal, an inspector held that because the walls did not comply with the approved plans, the works did not constitute development for the purpose of implementing planning permission.
The developer challenged that decision, and the High Court referred the matter for reconsideration by a second inspector, who also stated that the walls did not comply with the plans.
The High Court has now upheld that decision.
Sullivan J ruled that the inspector had been entitled to take the view that demolition of the majority of the walls would be necessary in order to conform with the original design, and maintained that his conclusions had been impeccably reasoned.
Imperial Resources SA v First Secretary of State and another Queen’s Bench Division: Administrative Court (Sullivan J) 17 March 2003.
John Hobson QC (instructed by Denton Wilde Sapte) appeared for the appellant; Philip Coppel (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; Peter Harrison (instructed by the solicitor to Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council) appeared for the second respondents.
References: PLS News 19/3/03
