Image from Google Jackets

Breckland DC v SoS for the Environment and Hill

Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1993) 65 PCR 34-46(7)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: QBD 9 April 1992. An application by H for a 16 pitch gypsy caravan site was accompanied by a map showing the site as being 0.47ha. The application was refused by the council. On appeal the inspector accepted an amended plan showing the area at 0.6ha so bringing it closer to three dwellings. The inspector did not consider the amendment substantially altered the proposal and so it was not necessary to inform the people affected. It was stressed that as there was agricultural work in the locality there would be no working areas on the site and therefore no serious harm to the living conditions of people close by. He was also unaware of any other sites in the area. Planning permission was granted and the council appealed. It was held that the amendment to the plan was substantial and that the local residents should have been informed and that the inspector had made an error in thinking that there were no other sites in the area.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS48298 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 66021-1001

QBD 9 April 1992. An application by H for a 16 pitch gypsy caravan site was accompanied by a map showing the site as being 0.47ha. The application was refused by the council. On appeal the inspector accepted an amended plan showing the area at 0.6ha so bringing it closer to three dwellings. The inspector did not consider the amendment substantially altered the proposal and so it was not necessary to inform the people affected. It was stressed that as there was agricultural work in the locality there would be no working areas on the site and therefore no serious harm to the living conditions of people close by. He was also unaware of any other sites in the area. Planning permission was granted and the council appealed. It was held that the amendment to the plan was substantial and that the local residents should have been informed and that the inspector had made an error in thinking that there were no other sites in the area.