Image from Google Jackets

Clarke v SoS for the Environment and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 1992 42 EG 100-106(4)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: CA 12 June 1992. Raises the question of whether the inspector had applied the proper test in deciding whether the erection of a building was a permitted development under the General Development Order (GDO) 1988. Appeal by SoS for Environment against the HC decision of 5 July 1991 allowing an appeal by the applicant (C) from a decision by the inspector dismissing his appeal against an enforcement notice issued by M. In 1990, C erected a building on his 40ha of farmland without planning permission. On 9 April 1990, the planning authority M issued an enforcement notice ordering C to remove the unauthorised building and return site to agricultural use. C appealed under s174(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The inspector dismissed C`s appeal on the grounds that the building was not designed for the purposes of agriculture. He also found that C had designed the building with the intention of developing a sheep unit and was satisfied that C was engaged in an agricultural business, ke
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS47512 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 62329-1001

CA 12 June 1992. Raises the question of whether the inspector had applied the proper test in deciding whether the erection of a building was a permitted development under the General Development Order (GDO) 1988. Appeal by SoS for Environment against the HC decision of 5 July 1991 allowing an appeal by the applicant (C) from a decision by the inspector dismissing his appeal against an enforcement notice issued by M. In 1990, C erected a building on his 40ha of farmland without planning permission. On 9 April 1990, the planning authority M issued an enforcement notice ordering C to remove the unauthorised building and return site to agricultural use. C appealed under s174(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The inspector dismissed C`s appeal on the grounds that the building was not designed for the purposes of agriculture. He also found that C had designed the building with the intention of developing a sheep unit and was satisfied that C was engaged in an agricultural business, ke