Fairchild v SoS for the Environment and Eastleigh BC
Language: English Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; (1988) JPL 472-476(5)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: QBD 2 December 1987. Appeal by F against decision of Inspector (I) who upheld enforcement notice s served on F. The notices related to a building and portakabin erected without planning permission . F sought to have the refusal of consent quashed and notices remitted for quashing. Site formerly used for sawing logs; F claimed that although the use had ceased, it had not been abandoned and he had a right to resume it. I concluded that 1) even if F did have the right to resume use of the land for sawing logs, that was not justification for F`s development and 2) the right to revert had been abandoned. SoS conceded that I`s approach had been erroneous but claimed that the decision in Young v SoS for the Environment , HL 27 July 1983, see Abstract 31800, should be followed. In that case it was considered that the Inspector`s approach had been erroneous but nevertheless he could, and should, have reached the same conclusion by a different route. QBD did not agree with that submission and| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39377 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 16242-1001 |
QBD 2 December 1987. Appeal by F against decision of Inspector (I) who upheld enforcement notice s served on F. The notices related to a building and portakabin erected without planning permission . F sought to have the refusal of consent quashed and notices remitted for quashing. Site formerly used for sawing logs; F claimed that although the use had ceased, it had not been abandoned and he had a right to resume it. I concluded that 1) even if F did have the right to resume use of the land for sawing logs, that was not justification for F`s development and 2) the right to revert had been abandoned. SoS conceded that I`s approach had been erroneous but claimed that the decision in Young v SoS for the Environment , HL 27 July 1983, see Abstract 31800, should be followed. In that case it was considered that the Inspector`s approach had been erroneous but nevertheless he could, and should, have reached the same conclusion by a different route. QBD did not agree with that submission and