000			01414cab a2200229 4500
001			X1761
008			090401t1994 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u19094
041			_aeng
245			_aBromley LBC v SoS Environment and J P Whelan & Sons (Construction) Ltd
260			_c1994
350			_a0
490			_aJournal of Planning and Environment Law _v(1994) JPL 1095-1103(5)
520			_aQBD 13 January 1994. Redundant agricultural buildings- use of yard- application of PPG2 guidance on redundant buildings- application of Pehrsson - first case to address re-use of redundant buildings and adjacent land- paragraph 16 of PPG2 did not refer to the carrying on of a primary use on open land no matter whether the land was adjacent to a redundant building or not- was required to be `a use appropriate to a rural area` within the meaning of para 13- Inspector wrong in treating Pehrsson as if it determined what the PPG2 advice was with respect to land outside redundant buildings- the Inspector had made his decision about the building without regard to the open land. Appeal allowed.
650			_aBROMLEY LBC V SOS ENVIRONMENT AND J P WHELAN & SONS
650			_aPLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE 2 (GREEN BELTS)
650			_aREDUNDANT BUILDINGS
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S289
690			_aPLANNING LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c12713 _d12713