Dyason v SoS Environment and Chiltern DC
Language: English Series: Property, Planning and Compensation Reports ; [1998] 75 P&CR 506-514(9)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: CA 28 January 1998. Dyason (D) applied for planning permission for extension to an ostrich farm. Chiltern DC (C) refused planning permission and D appealed. One of the issues was whether there was sufficient agricultural justification for the development to override environmental objections. D had supplied the Inspector with a business plan prior to the hearing , but it was not commented on at the inquiry. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that there was doubt about the intentions of D and the way in which the business was to develop. The decision letter did not refer to the business plan. The High Court dismissed an application to quash the Inspectors decision and the appellant appealed to the CA on the basis that he had not had a fair hearing. "Held" the fair hearing required by statute had not been provided by the Inspector.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS58939 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 87094-1001 |
CA 28 January 1998. Dyason (D) applied for planning permission for extension to an ostrich farm. Chiltern DC (C) refused planning permission and D appealed. One of the issues was whether there was sufficient agricultural justification for the development to override environmental objections. D had supplied the Inspector with a business plan prior to the hearing , but it was not commented on at the inquiry. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that there was doubt about the intentions of D and the way in which the business was to develop. The decision letter did not refer to the business plan. The High Court dismissed an application to quash the Inspectors decision and the appellant appealed to the CA on the basis that he had not had a fair hearing. "Held" the fair hearing required by statute had not been provided by the Inspector.