Newbury DC v SoS for the Environment and Rawlings
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1988) 55 PCR 100-110(10)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: QBD 1 July 1987. Appeal by council (N) against decision of first defendant (S), who amended an enforcement notice issued by N to the second defendant (R) alleging a material change of use of certain land used for stationing of mobile homes and for carrying on a scrap metal dealer`s business. R appealed and the Inspector (I) granted planning permission for mixed use which included the carrying on of the scrap metal business. I found there were existing use rights for stationing two caravans . Unfortunately amendments made by I to the enforcement notice were inconsistent with his findings in requiring the owner to cease to use the land for stationing caravans. All agreed there was an error and on appeal to the High Court the matter was remitted to S for reconsideration. S`s ensuing decision letter still contained ambiguities and N appealed to have the error corrected and the decision remitted to S for redetermination. R submitted that on remission to S to correct the error relating to| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38824 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 12571-1001 |
QBD 1 July 1987. Appeal by council (N) against decision of first defendant (S), who amended an enforcement notice issued by N to the second defendant (R) alleging a material change of use of certain land used for stationing of mobile homes and for carrying on a scrap metal dealer`s business. R appealed and the Inspector (I) granted planning permission for mixed use which included the carrying on of the scrap metal business. I found there were existing use rights for stationing two caravans . Unfortunately amendments made by I to the enforcement notice were inconsistent with his findings in requiring the owner to cease to use the land for stationing caravans. All agreed there was an error and on appeal to the High Court the matter was remitted to S for reconsideration. S`s ensuing decision letter still contained ambiguities and N appealed to have the error corrected and the decision remitted to S for redetermination. R submitted that on remission to S to correct the error relating to