The Court of Appeal has rejected a challenge by the owner of a New Cross property to a High Court ruling that backed the right of Lewisham Council to enforce a demolition order 12 years after it was issued. The order was originally issued against the authorities of a local college on the ground that they had constructed a rear extension at 46 New Cross Road without consent.
The council had appointed a contractor to demolish the extension, but withdrew their instructions when told that the college intended to carry out the work itself.
However, the work was not carried out, and, later, there were complaints about noise coming from the extension, which was by then being used as a church. It was in those circumstances that the council sought to enforce the original demolition order.
The college authorities argued that it was unreasonable to enforce the order so long after it had issued, but the High Court held that the college authorities had not suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay, finding that they had still been allowed to use the building for some time in spite of the notice.
In such circumstances, the High Court held that it would be reasonable for the council to enforce the notice.
The Court of Appeal has now rejected arguments by the present owner, Tiami Bello, that the delay in the enforcement of the demolition notice operated as a bar to its execution, and that the council’s motives in seeking to enforce it, at this late stage, were improper.
R (on the application of Bello) v Lewisham London Borough Council Court of Appeal (Schiemann and Keene LJJ) 21 February 2003.
References: PLS News 25/2/03
