Guildford BC v First SoS
Publication details: 2004Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2004] EWHC 1291 (Admin), 24 May 2004. G appealed against a planning inspector's decision to quash an enforcement notice for breach of planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s288. The inspector had granted planning permission subject to conditions including a condition that residential use should cease and that a mobile home should be removed from land within three years. The owner operated an agricultural business together with a livery service. The mobile home was occupied by a full time agricultural worker who needed to be on site to tend to the livestock. The inspector held that although a livery stable operation is not agricultural use, it compliments agricultural activities and it is reasonable where it is operated as part of a farming system to allow it. G argued on appeal that the inspector had wrongly interpreted the relevant policy in PPG7 and PPG2. HC upheld the inspector's decision supporting his decision in favour of farm diversification. View judgment at www.bailii.org.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS68050 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 126919-1001 | |
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 126919-2001 |
[2004] EWHC 1291 (Admin), 24 May 2004. G appealed against a planning inspector's decision to quash an enforcement notice for breach of planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s288. The inspector had granted planning permission subject to conditions including a condition that residential use should cease and that a mobile home should be removed from land within three years. The owner operated an agricultural business together with a livery service. The mobile home was occupied by a full time agricultural worker who needed to be on site to tend to the livestock. The inspector held that although a livery stable operation is not agricultural use, it compliments agricultural activities and it is reasonable where it is operated as part of a farming system to allow it. G argued on appeal that the inspector had wrongly interpreted the relevant policy in PPG7 and PPG2. HC upheld the inspector's decision supporting his decision in favour of farm diversification. View judgment at www.bailii.org.