Bromsgrove DC v SoS for Environment and another
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1988) 56 PCR 221-228(8)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: QBD 12 November 1988 Application under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s245 by the council (B) against a decision of the first respondent, the SOS, allowing an appeal by the second respondent A E Beckett and Sons (Developments) Ltd (A) against the refusal of planning permission by B for the use of a farm building for food processing . On appeal by A, the SOS granted pp subject to a condition limiting the use to the processing of meat reared on A`s farms only. B applied to quash the SOS decision on the grounds that the condition was difficult to enforce since it would be difficult to determine whether any carcass found on the premises actually came from A`s farms. B also contended that the SOS had failed to have regard to his own policy or failed to give reasons for departing from that policy and that the condition was one that no reasonable SOS could impose. QBD held, dismissing application, that a condition contained in the granting of pp was not void simply because it was diffic| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS40010 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 20644-1001 |
QBD 12 November 1988 Application under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s245 by the council (B) against a decision of the first respondent, the SOS, allowing an appeal by the second respondent A E Beckett and Sons (Developments) Ltd (A) against the refusal of planning permission by B for the use of a farm building for food processing . On appeal by A, the SOS granted pp subject to a condition limiting the use to the processing of meat reared on A`s farms only. B applied to quash the SOS decision on the grounds that the condition was difficult to enforce since it would be difficult to determine whether any carcass found on the premises actually came from A`s farms. B also contended that the SOS had failed to have regard to his own policy or failed to give reasons for departing from that policy and that the condition was one that no reasonable SOS could impose. QBD held, dismissing application, that a condition contained in the granting of pp was not void simply because it was diffic