Cranleigh Aerials Ltd V SoS for the Environment and Waverley BC
Language: English Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; 1992 JPL 1046-1057(6)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: CA 18 December 1991. C purchased the site in question in 1988 which had formally been part of a cattle farm. An enforcement notice was issued alleging a breach of planning control from agricultural use to `mixed use for office and industrial purposes, storage of non-agricultural materials vehicles, storage garage and repair`. The notice was issued because the site, although outside the Green Belt was subject to a structure plan policy with a presumption against development and also because the development introduced commercial development to the detriment of the character of the rural area. C appealed to the SoS on the grounds that the agricultural use of the building had become uneconomical and therefore rendered it redundant for agricultural purposes. The appeal was dismissed so C applied to HC. The appeal was allowed on the grounds that the inspector had failed to properly consider the need to further the diversification of the rural economy of the area and that in a number of res| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS47314 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 61575-1001 |
CA 18 December 1991. C purchased the site in question in 1988 which had formally been part of a cattle farm. An enforcement notice was issued alleging a breach of planning control from agricultural use to `mixed use for office and industrial purposes, storage of non-agricultural materials vehicles, storage garage and repair`. The notice was issued because the site, although outside the Green Belt was subject to a structure plan policy with a presumption against development and also because the development introduced commercial development to the detriment of the character of the rural area. C appealed to the SoS on the grounds that the agricultural use of the building had become uneconomical and therefore rendered it redundant for agricultural purposes. The appeal was dismissed so C applied to HC. The appeal was allowed on the grounds that the inspector had failed to properly consider the need to further the diversification of the rural economy of the area and that in a number of res