000			01623cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS58343
008			090401t1998 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u83582
041			_aeng
245			_aRichardson v SoS Environment and Milton Keynes BC
260			_c1998
350			_a0
490			_aProperty and Compensation Reports _v[1998] 75 P&CR 97-101(5)
520			_aQBD 13 March 1997. The applicants applied to build an alternative house from which to continue their farming operation since their existing house was close to the M1 motorway and they had received an offer from the Highways Agency to purchase the house. The Agency wished to use the house for business use rather than demolish it. The location chosen for the new dwelling was a considerable distance from the existing house and was in open countryside. Buckinghamshire Country Structure Plan contained a presumption against development in open countryside but allowed `limited extension, replacement or alteration of existing dwellings`. At appeal, the applicants argued that they were replacing their existing dwelling with the new dwelling. The Inspector rejected that submission on the grounds that the term `replace`, as applied in a planning context, was to restore to a previous place or position. The applicants appealed to the High Court. Held, dismissing the application.
650			_aPLANNING PERMISSION
650			_aREPLACEMENT
650			_aRICHARDSON V SOS ENVIRONMENT AND MILTON KEYNES BC
650			_aSTRUCTURE PLAN
690			_aPLANNING LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c06/02/1998
999			_c52803 _d52803