White v SoS for the Environment and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1989) 15 EG 193-198(4)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: CA 1 February 1989. In April 1982 the appellants (W) applied for an established use certificate on a piece of land, the use being `winter storage for showmen and caravan site for showmen`. The council refused and W applied to the SoS who in April 1984 dismissed the appeal. This decision became subject of an application under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s245. The council issued an enforcement notice alleging use of the site for `residential occupation of caravans`. W appealed to the SoS who dismissed the appeal but amended the notice. An appeal was made under s246. An inquiry was held which claimed the site had been used for various purposes including intermittently for the caravans. It was held that the pre-existing use had been abandoned and resumption required planning permission. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that circus use had been abandoned in 1981 despite arguments that there was no such thing as abandonment of an existing use.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS40665 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 25342-1001 |
CA 1 February 1989. In April 1982 the appellants (W) applied for an established use certificate on a piece of land, the use being `winter storage for showmen and caravan site for showmen`. The council refused and W applied to the SoS who in April 1984 dismissed the appeal. This decision became subject of an application under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s245. The council issued an enforcement notice alleging use of the site for `residential occupation of caravans`. W appealed to the SoS who dismissed the appeal but amended the notice. An appeal was made under s246. An inquiry was held which claimed the site had been used for various purposes including intermittently for the caravans. It was held that the pre-existing use had been abandoned and resumption required planning permission. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that circus use had been abandoned in 1981 despite arguments that there was no such thing as abandonment of an existing use.