000			02153cab a2200229 4500
001			##L132925
008			060323n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u132925
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aHart District Council v Benford and others
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] EWHC 240, 22 February 2006. Considers whether granting an injunction to restrain land owners from using their agricultural land for motorcycling activities would be appropriate where there was no evidence that the activities fell within the14-day permitted use rather than the 28-day permitted use under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order Sched 2 para B. H applied for an injunction under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s187B to prevent B using their agricultural land for motor cycling activities for more than the 14 days permitted by Sched 2 para B of the Order and to remove earth mounds built for these activities. H submitted that the injunction should be granted as B had exceeded and was likely to carry on exceeding the permitted use of the land and had also breached an enforcement notice by constructing the earth mounds. "Held": the granting of an injunction was inappropriate because the evidence did not support H's contention that the motorcycling activities fell within the14-day as opposed to 28-day permitted use. It would also not be just and proportionate on the evidence to remove the earth mounds at the instant stage.
590			_aIKA280206
650	2	4	_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S187(B)
650	2	4	_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995 SCHED 2 PARA B2
650	2	4	_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995 SCHED 2 PART IV PARA B
650	2	4	_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995
650	2	4	_aHART DC V BENFORD AND OTHERS
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT-DEVELOPMENT CONTROL-PLANNING ENFORCEMENT
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/240.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org....
942			_n0
999			_c76695 _d76695