000			01249cab a2200277 4500
001			WB3025-46
008			090401t1994 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u29460
041			_aeng
245			_aPermitted development
260			_c1994
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette Case Summaries _v(1994) EGCS 112(1) (25/6/94)
520			_a"Peacock v SoS Environment and another" CA 14 June 1994. Replacement of a poultry house was not allowed as it would have been within 25m of a classified road and the development would be outside the exemptions under Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. The appellants` submission that the GDO created a presumption in favour of development was dismissed. The building of a poultry house did not come within permitted development.
650			_aDISTANCE
650			_aFARM BUILDINGS
650			_aLIVESTOCK BUILDINGS
650			_aMAIN ROADS
650			_aPERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
650			_aPLANNING PERMISSION
650			_aPROPERTY-INFRASTRUCTURE-TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE-ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING GENERAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER 1988
690			_aPLANNING LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c19841 _d19841