000			01394cab a2200205 4500
001			ABS41888
008			090401t1989 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u33282
041			_aeng
245			_aEmin v SOS for the Environment and Mid-Sussex DC
260			_c1989
350			_a0
490			_aJournal of Planning and Environment Law _v(1989) JPL 909-914(6)
520			_aQBD 3 February 1989 Appeal by Emin against a decision that planning permission was required for the erection of two buildings within the curtilage of a dwelling house . The proposed buildings were to provide facilities for pottery , archery and billiards . The principal issue was whether the buildings "were ... incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house" and thereby permitted development under General Development Order 1977 Class 1.3 . The inspector decided that they were not and dismissed the application. On appeal, QBD held that the inspector was wrong in concluding that archery was not a possible incidental purpose; it could be regarded as a hobby and practised in a building. The inspector was also wrong in applying the incidental test solely by reference to the physical size of the relevant buildings. Application allowed.
650			_aPLANNING APPEALS
650			_aSECTION 53 DETERMINATION
690			_aPLANNING LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c22245 _d22245