Hall Hunter Partnership V First Secretary of State and others [electronic resource]
Hall Hunter Partnership V First Secretary of State and others [electronic resource]
- 2006
[2006] EWHC 3482 (Admin), 15 December 2006. The appellant (H) was a farming partnership which appealed against two enforcement notices served by a local authority (W). The notices related to 45 caravans being located on H?s farm for seasonal workers, and to the erection of large plastic walk-in polytunnels across the farm for growing fresh fruit. The farm was within a designated AONB. H submitted that (1) the inspector had wrongly listed the polytunnels as development, (2) that if they were classed as development then they should be classed as permitted development since their purpose was operations, not a change of use of land, and (3) that it was incorrect to say that the stationing of caravans on the farm was not permitted. "Held": (1) The size, degree of permanence and circumstances had been considered by the planning inspector. There was no conceivable error of law as to whether polytunnels represented development. (2) The inspector had characterised the activities as a use of land, not as operations, and this was correct. (3) The evidence showed that the land was in use as a caravan site beyond mere seasonal use.
R V FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND OTHERS
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995
SKERRITTS OF NOTTINGHAM LTD V SOS ENVIRONMENT
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S55(1)
England and Wales--1543-
[2006] EWHC 3482 (Admin), 15 December 2006. The appellant (H) was a farming partnership which appealed against two enforcement notices served by a local authority (W). The notices related to 45 caravans being located on H?s farm for seasonal workers, and to the erection of large plastic walk-in polytunnels across the farm for growing fresh fruit. The farm was within a designated AONB. H submitted that (1) the inspector had wrongly listed the polytunnels as development, (2) that if they were classed as development then they should be classed as permitted development since their purpose was operations, not a change of use of land, and (3) that it was incorrect to say that the stationing of caravans on the farm was not permitted. "Held": (1) The size, degree of permanence and circumstances had been considered by the planning inspector. There was no conceivable error of law as to whether polytunnels represented development. (2) The inspector had characterised the activities as a use of land, not as operations, and this was correct. (3) The evidence showed that the land was in use as a caravan site beyond mere seasonal use.
R V FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND OTHERS
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995
SKERRITTS OF NOTTINGHAM LTD V SOS ENVIRONMENT
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S55(1)
England and Wales--1543-