Image from Google Jackets

JL Engineering and another v SoS Environment and another

Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1994) 68 PCR 504-519(16)Publication details: 1994Subject(s): Summary: CA 16 June 1994. J occupied an engineering works and in 1988 purchased an adjoining site in green belt which they hard covered and used for storage. This land had already been used for this purpose from 1942-1972. In 1990 the planning authority served enforcement notices alleging a material change of use from agricultural to engineering related storage and operational development. J appealed. Between closure of the inquiry and the issue of the decision letter it came to light that in 1948 permission had been granted for the extraction of clay from a site adjoining the appeal site. J had sought to register this with the mineral planning authority under Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The Inspector considered that this fresh evidence did not affect his decision. Appeal dismissed and the 1948 permission was registered. An appeal to HC was dismissed so J appealed to CA on the grounds that the change of use did not constitute a breach of planning control and that the Inspector had wro
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article Z7083 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 69971-1001

CA 16 June 1994. J occupied an engineering works and in 1988 purchased an adjoining site in green belt which they hard covered and used for storage. This land had already been used for this purpose from 1942-1972. In 1990 the planning authority served enforcement notices alleging a material change of use from agricultural to engineering related storage and operational development. J appealed. Between closure of the inquiry and the issue of the decision letter it came to light that in 1948 permission had been granted for the extraction of clay from a site adjoining the appeal site. J had sought to register this with the mineral planning authority under Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The Inspector considered that this fresh evidence did not affect his decision. Appeal dismissed and the 1948 permission was registered. An appeal to HC was dismissed so J appealed to CA on the grounds that the change of use did not constitute a breach of planning control and that the Inspector had wro