Image from Google Jackets

Fuller v SoS for the Environment and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 283(6348) 22 August 1987, 847-851(3)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: QBD 22 May 1987 Appeal under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s246 against decision of SoS to uphold enforcement notices served by planning authority on the appellant in respect of the storage of grain on two of the appellant`s farms. The enforcement notices alleged breach of planning control by making a material change in the use of the land. The grain storage of which complaint was made related mainly to storage resulting from the EEC intervention system and agreement with the Grain and Feed Trade Association which was concerned with grain futures. The appellant`s objection to the enforcement notices was that by their wording and by the interpretation given by SoS to the land affected, the scope of the notices was distorted and legitimate storage arrangements prevented. SoS had taken the view that the two farms to which the proceedings related were separate planning units. The appellant attacked this approach and submitted that the SoS had misdirected himself in holding that geog
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS38097 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 8715-1001

QBD 22 May 1987 Appeal under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s246 against decision of SoS to uphold enforcement notices served by planning authority on the appellant in respect of the storage of grain on two of the appellant`s farms. The enforcement notices alleged breach of planning control by making a material change in the use of the land. The grain storage of which complaint was made related mainly to storage resulting from the EEC intervention system and agreement with the Grain and Feed Trade Association which was concerned with grain futures. The appellant`s objection to the enforcement notices was that by their wording and by the interpretation given by SoS to the land affected, the scope of the notices was distorted and legitimate storage arrangements prevented. SoS had taken the view that the two farms to which the proceedings related were separate planning units. The appellant attacked this approach and submitted that the SoS had misdirected himself in holding that geog