Image from Google Jackets

Epping Forest DC v Scott

Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1987) 53 PCR 79-90(12)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: QBD 27 February 1985. Appeal by authority from decision by magistrates dismissing an information alleging the defendants had failed to comply with enforcement notice s. The defendants had purchased the land with planning permission for an agricultural worker`s dwelling, subject to a condition that the occupier was to be employed in agriculture . An application was made to build a dwelling without the condition and, when this was refused, built, relying on the outstanding permission. The first defendant`s main occupation was a builder who worked on the land evenings and weekends; his wife, the second defendant worked on the land every day and most weekends. Enforcement notices were served requiring discontinuance of occupation of the dwelling by persons who were neither solely, nor mainly employed in agriculture. The defendants appealed, contending that they were required to comply with the condition as detailed in the original planning permission and not with the more stringent form

QBD 27 February 1985. Appeal by authority from decision by magistrates dismissing an information alleging the defendants had failed to comply with enforcement notice s. The defendants had purchased the land with planning permission for an agricultural worker`s dwelling, subject to a condition that the occupier was to be employed in agriculture . An application was made to build a dwelling without the condition and, when this was refused, built, relying on the outstanding permission. The first defendant`s main occupation was a builder who worked on the land evenings and weekends; his wife, the second defendant worked on the land every day and most weekends. Enforcement notices were served requiring discontinuance of occupation of the dwelling by persons who were neither solely, nor mainly employed in agriculture. The defendants appealed, contending that they were required to comply with the condition as detailed in the original planning permission and not with the more stringent form