000			01535cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS58939
008			090401t1998 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u87094
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aDyason v SoS Environment and Chiltern DC
260			_c1998
350			_a0
490		0	_aProperty, Planning and Compensation Reports _v[1998] 75 P&CR 506-514(9)
520			_aCA 28 January 1998. Dyason (D) applied for planning permission for extension to an ostrich farm. Chiltern DC (C) refused planning permission and D appealed. One of the issues was whether there was sufficient agricultural justification for the development to override environmental objections. D had supplied the Inspector with a business plan prior to the hearing , but it was not commented on at the inquiry. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that there was doubt about the intentions of D and the way in which the business was to develop. The decision letter did not refer to the business plan. The High Court dismissed an application to quash the Inspectors decision and the appellant appealed to the CA on the basis that he had not had a fair hearing. "Held" the fair hearing required by statute had not been provided by the Inspector.
650	2	4	_aDYASON V SOS ENVIRONMENT AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S79
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT-DEVELOPMENT CONTROL-PLANNING APPLICATIONS
942			_n0
948			_c30/06/1998
999			_c54884 _d54884