000			01528cam a2200193 4500
001			ABS60837
008			000000n1999 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u101343
245			_aWalton v Sedgefield Borough Council
260			_c1999
490			_aJournal of Planning and Environment Law _v(1999) JPL 541-553(13)
520			_aQBD 16 November 1998. The appellant (W) owned land on which the Council (S) served an enforcement notice requiring use of the land for motor sports to stop and the removal of old tyres used to define a track. The use of land for motor sports ceased, but the tyres remained, and S issued a summons alleging failure to comply with the enforcement notice. Counsel for W submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove that W was the owner of the land at the material time. S submitted material relating to ownership in the form of an application for a certificate of lawfulness and a letter from W's solicitors to S. W's submission was rejected and he was convicted of the charge. He then appealed, referring to the definition of ownership in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s336(1), and claiming the documents referred to by S were inadmissable. "Held", appeal dismissed. The documents were admissable and what is sufficient to establish ownership depends on the circumstances of the case.
650			_aENFORCEMENT NOTICES
650			_aCHANGE OF USE
650			_aOWNERSHIP
650			_aWALTON V SEDGEFIELD BC
690			_aPLANNING LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c60490 _d60490