Town and country planning
Series: Estates Gazette Case Summaries ; [2002] 11 EG 154 (CS)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: "Harrods v SoS Environment, Transport and the Regions and another", CA 7 March 2002. Appellant (H) applied for a lawful use certificate for helicopter landings on its department store roof. The council refused permission claiming the proposed use was not ordinarily incidental to the primary use within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. The SoS applied a test of whether the proposed use was 'ordinarily' incidental to the primary use, found it was not and dismissed H's appeal. H brought proceedings contending the validity of the test. The claim was dismissed and H appealed. Appeal dimissed on the grounds that the SoS had applied the correct test.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London News article | WB3811-28 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 117179-1001 |
"Harrods v SoS Environment, Transport and the Regions and another", CA 7 March 2002. Appellant (H) applied for a lawful use certificate for helicopter landings on its department store roof. The council refused permission claiming the proposed use was not ordinarily incidental to the primary use within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. The SoS applied a test of whether the proposed use was 'ordinarily' incidental to the primary use, found it was not and dismissed H's appeal. H brought proceedings contending the validity of the test. The claim was dismissed and H appealed. Appeal dimissed on the grounds that the SoS had applied the correct test.