Pedgrift and others v Oxfordshire County Council
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; 63 P&CR 246-259(7)Subject(s): Summary: CA 31 July 1991. An appeal by the plaintiffs (P) against a decision concerning the validity of planning permission for the extraction of limestone. In 1947, Wallace Industries were granted permission to extract limestone from land that they owned, subject to conditions, including `access to the site was to be way of the road from Stourwell Barn to Wigginton Heath, this road to be improved to the reas- onable satisfaction of the county surveyor`. No mineral workings were carried out, and no improvements to the road were made. P sought a declaration that the planning permission for mineral workings was still valid. High Court held that the condition affected land outside the control of the applicant, and was void. P appealed. Held, dismissing the appeal that the condition was invalid as it imposed positive obligations on P to carry out work on land outside his control which were unreasonable, and secondly it was not clear that the landowner could ensure that the conditions were complie| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS46452 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 58318-1001 |
CA 31 July 1991. An appeal by the plaintiffs (P) against a decision concerning the validity of planning permission for the extraction of limestone. In 1947, Wallace Industries were granted permission to extract limestone from land that they owned, subject to conditions, including `access to the site was to be way of the road from Stourwell Barn to Wigginton Heath, this road to be improved to the reas- onable satisfaction of the county surveyor`. No mineral workings were carried out, and no improvements to the road were made. P sought a declaration that the planning permission for mineral workings was still valid. High Court held that the condition affected land outside the control of the applicant, and was void. P appealed. Held, dismissing the appeal that the condition was invalid as it imposed positive obligations on P to carry out work on land outside his control which were unreasonable, and secondly it was not clear that the landowner could ensure that the conditions were complie