Land was designated as ‘a protected natural site’, the effect of which was that agricultural activities could continue but that if the owner wished to alter or intensify the use of the land or to make certain changes in agricultural practices, authorisation was necessary. The owner argued that he had been deprived of the right to cultivate part of his land. The commission held that this involved a control of use; he was restricted in his manner of farming but not prevented from continuing his farming.
12565/86, (1989) 62 DR 200, [1991] ECHR 52
Worldlii, Bailii
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Fisher and Another v English Nature Admn 4-Jul-2003
The claimants were trustees of land. The Respondent had notified the Secretary of State that they considered that part of the land satisfied the criteria to be certifed as being of special scientific interest. They now intended to confirm the . .
Cited – Trailer and Marina (Leven) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, English Nature QBD 6-Feb-2004
The claimant owned land which contained a canal. After disuse it had become subject an order declaring it a site of special scientific intrest. The owner complained that this removed his right to develop uses of the land and infringed his human . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.165136 br>