This was an appeal from a decision of Judge Silber who refused the claimant's application for judicial review with decision of Lewisham London Borough council to enforce a demolition notice. The demolition notice had been served under Section 36 of the Buildling Act 1984 and require the claimant to remove a rear building extension to its property. The extension was built in 1988. The Building Act Notice requiring demolition had been served later that year. Between 1988 and 1990 the parties engaged in correspondence and litigation. However, no further action was taken until May 1999 when neighbours complained about noise emanating from the extension as a result of religious services between 12.00 am and 6.00 am. On 5 April 2000 the council decided to enforce the notice that had been served in 1988.
Was the decision taken in 2000 to enforce the demolition notice that had been served in 1988 unreasonable.

Reference

The Court of Appeal held that although the council had done nothing in respect of the matter for approximately 10 years no prejudice had been suffered by the claimant as a result of the delay. There was an important distinction between an administrative delay and a delay that caused no injustice. In this case the claimant had not suffered from the delay but had enjoyed the benefit of the illegal building. The discretion to enforce the notice was wide and the council's powers were lawful.

For further information, call Tony Francis or Nicholas Gould on 0207 956 9354

Postscript

This is an interesting case because it demonstrates that council can enforce a demolition notice some 12 years after having the initial Section 36 Building Act Notice requiring demolition. If a building or an extension is built without obtaining the appropriate planning permission then the passing of time is unlikely to provide a defence to enforcement of that demolition notice.