R v Chichester Justices and another ex parte Chichester DC
R v Chichester Justices and another ex parte Chichester DC
- 1990
- Property and Compensation Reports (1990) 60 PCR 342-348(7) .
QBD 30 January 1990. The council (C) issued an enforcement notice against the second respondent (K) requiring demolition of a two-storey building erected on his farm without consent. While an appeal to the SoS was pending K built a single- storey extension to this building. C issued a second enforcement notice requiring its demolition as well. K appealed and this succeeded. The notices were varied to require demolition of the first floor and external staircase of the original building and the balcony and roof of the extension. K did not comply with these notices but submitted two planning applications to the local authority. His application for a single storey feed store and conversion of existing external staircases to WCs and offices was granted. The second application to convert the building to a dwelling failed. C instituted proceedings for failure to comply with the enforcement notices and K elected for trial by jury. The magistrates refused to commit for trial; there was no cas
QBD 30 January 1990. The council (C) issued an enforcement notice against the second respondent (K) requiring demolition of a two-storey building erected on his farm without consent. While an appeal to the SoS was pending K built a single- storey extension to this building. C issued a second enforcement notice requiring its demolition as well. K appealed and this succeeded. The notices were varied to require demolition of the first floor and external staircase of the original building and the balcony and roof of the extension. K did not comply with these notices but submitted two planning applications to the local authority. His application for a single storey feed store and conversion of existing external staircases to WCs and offices was granted. The second application to convert the building to a dwelling failed. C instituted proceedings for failure to comply with the enforcement notices and K elected for trial by jury. The magistrates refused to commit for trial; there was no cas