James Hay Pension Trustees Ltd v First Secretary of State
Language: English Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2005] EWHC 2713 (Admin), 30 November 2005. Considered whether a certificate of lawful use is still valid if it does not follow the form set out in the General Development Procedure Order 1995 Sched 4. South Gloucestershire DC responded to J's application for a certificate of lawful use with a document stating that a planning permission granted in 1965 was not limited to the then owner and that a reference to an old class in the permission was now covered by Class B8. When S subsequently issued an enforcement notice for breach of planning control J argued that the document issued by S constituted a certificate of lawful use and appealed against the enforcement notice. This appeal was rejected. "Held": the appeal was allowed as the document was intended to be a significant planning document and was in a form similar to that required by the Order.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 132186-1001 |
Browsing Virtual shelves, Shelving location: Online Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| ONLINE PUBLICATION Huseyin Akici v L R Butlin Ltd | ONLINE PUBLICATION Centralan Property Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise | ONLINE PUBLICATION Gary White and Ellen White v Riverside Housing Association Ltd | ONLINE PUBLICATION James Hay Pension Trustees Ltd v First Secretary of State | ONLINE PUBLICATION MSSL | ONLINE PUBLICATION House price surveys' roundup December 2005 | ONLINE PUBLICATION Midland Expressway v Carillion Construction Ltd and others |
[2005] EWHC 2713 (Admin), 30 November 2005. Considered whether a certificate of lawful use is still valid if it does not follow the form set out in the General Development Procedure Order 1995 Sched 4. South Gloucestershire DC responded to J's application for a certificate of lawful use with a document stating that a planning permission granted in 1965 was not limited to the then owner and that a reference to an old class in the permission was now covered by Class B8. When S subsequently issued an enforcement notice for breach of planning control J argued that the document issued by S constituted a certificate of lawful use and appealed against the enforcement notice. This appeal was rejected. "Held": the appeal was allowed as the document was intended to be a significant planning document and was in a form similar to that required by the Order.