Hancock v SOS for the Environment and Torridge DC ; Tyack v SOS for the Environment and Cotswold DC
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1989) 57 PCR 140-152(13)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: CA 21 June 1988 Hancock (H) erected a silage clamp on his farm . Torridge DC (T) enforced against him saying that the works were not permitted development as the land was not agricultural land of more than one acre. The site was separated from the rest of the farm by a public highway . SOS dismissed the appeal and H took his case to High Court which allowed appeal and remitted the matter to SOS who took the case to CA. in the other case Tyack (T) built a barn in the garden of his house from which he directed his farming interests. The council issued an enforcement notice alleging breach of planning control. T appealed to SOS claiming that the land was of more than one acre and SOS allowed the appeal. On appeal, High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to SOS who took the case to CA. Held, in determining whether land comprised "agricultural land having an area of more than one acre" the correct approach was first to determine whether the site that was the subject of the enf| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS40662 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 25322-1001 |
CA 21 June 1988 Hancock (H) erected a silage clamp on his farm . Torridge DC (T) enforced against him saying that the works were not permitted development as the land was not agricultural land of more than one acre. The site was separated from the rest of the farm by a public highway . SOS dismissed the appeal and H took his case to High Court which allowed appeal and remitted the matter to SOS who took the case to CA. in the other case Tyack (T) built a barn in the garden of his house from which he directed his farming interests. The council issued an enforcement notice alleging breach of planning control. T appealed to SOS claiming that the land was of more than one acre and SOS allowed the appeal. On appeal, High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to SOS who took the case to CA. Held, in determining whether land comprised "agricultural land having an area of more than one acre" the correct approach was first to determine whether the site that was the subject of the enf