Clarke v SoS for the Environment and Melton BC
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1992) 63 PCR 429-436(8)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: QBD 5 July 1991. The appellant C built a barn which comprosed an agricultural unit for a flock of ewes. The barn was used to store equipment and as a repair workshop. The council served an enforcement notice requiring the removal of the barn as an unauthorised building. C appealed to the SoS who appointed an inspector to hold a public enquiry. C claimed he was entitled to build the barn because it was permitted development under Town and Country Planning (General Development Order) 1988 Sch 2 Class A. Issues arose as to whether the building was `reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture`. The inspector concluded that the barn was not necessary for the sheep unit and was not designed for agricultural purposes. C appealed. The appeal was allowed on the grounds that development permitted by the class is not confined to the particular agricultural activity being carried out at the time of the application and that it was designed for agricultural purposes.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS46643 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 58984-1001 |
QBD 5 July 1991. The appellant C built a barn which comprosed an agricultural unit for a flock of ewes. The barn was used to store equipment and as a repair workshop. The council served an enforcement notice requiring the removal of the barn as an unauthorised building. C appealed to the SoS who appointed an inspector to hold a public enquiry. C claimed he was entitled to build the barn because it was permitted development under Town and Country Planning (General Development Order) 1988 Sch 2 Class A. Issues arose as to whether the building was `reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture`. The inspector concluded that the barn was not necessary for the sheep unit and was not designed for agricultural purposes. C appealed. The appeal was allowed on the grounds that development permitted by the class is not confined to the particular agricultural activity being carried out at the time of the application and that it was designed for agricultural purposes.