Reed v SoS for the Environment and Tandridge DC
Language: English Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; 1993 JPL 249-253(3)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: QBD 6 May 1992. The appellant had an agricultural holding in the Metropolitan Green Belt and was served by the council with 10 enforcement notices alleging change of use of certain buildings on the holding. There was no planning permission for these uses. The appellant appealed against the enforcement notices but this was dismissed. They appealed to the High Court. It was held that each enforcement notice should be considered individually as permission could not be refused for use of a particular site by virtue of uses on other sites unless there is a convincing and legitimate reason.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS48304 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 66070-1001 |
QBD 6 May 1992. The appellant had an agricultural holding in the Metropolitan Green Belt and was served by the council with 10 enforcement notices alleging change of use of certain buildings on the holding. There was no planning permission for these uses. The appellant appealed against the enforcement notices but this was dismissed. They appealed to the High Court. It was held that each enforcement notice should be considered individually as permission could not be refused for use of a particular site by virtue of uses on other sites unless there is a convincing and legitimate reason.