000			02040cam a2200301 4500
001			ABS68050
008			040723n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u126919
245			_aGuildford BC v First SoS
260			_c2004
520			_a[2004] EWHC 1291 (Admin), 24 May 2004. G appealed against a planning inspector's decision to quash an enforcement notice for breach of planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s288. The inspector had granted planning permission subject to conditions including a condition that residential use should cease and that a mobile home should be removed from land within three years. The owner operated an agricultural business together with a livery service. The mobile home was occupied by a full time agricultural worker who needed to be on site to tend to the livestock. The inspector held that although a livery stable operation is not agricultural use, it compliments agricultural activities and it is reasonable where it is operated as part of a farming system to allow it. G argued on appeal that the inspector had wrongly interpreted the relevant policy in PPG7 and PPG2. HC upheld the inspector's decision supporting his decision in favour of farm diversification. View judgment at www.bailii.org.
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
650			_aGUILDFORD BC V FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S288
650			_aLIVERY STABLES
650			_aFARM DIVERSIFICATION
650			_aAGRICULTURAL USE
650			_aPPG7
650			_aPLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE 2 (GREEN BELTS)
650			_aMOBILE HOMES
690			_aPLANNING-CASE LAW
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/1291.html _zView judgment on the BAILL websiteƯ
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/1291.html _zView judgment on the BAILL websiteƯ
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/1291.html _zView judgment on the BAILL websiteƯ
942			_n0
999			_c117766 _d117766