Roundhouse

[bigpaul]

(30 December 2012, 11:00)BDG Wrote: It may be that they judge that agriculture is unlikely to continue due to her MS or it may be that she needs to pay for better legal representation. If she is conducting agriculture on the land that requires a full time presence - and the husbandry of animals requires such a presence - and this agriculture is likely to continue - she has met the conditions laid out in Petter and Harris.

However, as she has MS, due to the nature of the condition, it is not unreasonable for her venture to be have to make a profit as during times her illness will mean she has to employ people. If she is not independently wealthy then the agricultural enterprise must produce enough to cover the times when she cannot work.

If she cannot show that someone can be employed to cover when she cannot work, it is not certain that agriculture can continue.

she used special barristers who worked for free but even they couldnt win the case, she used the land for "educational" purposes which a lot of places use to get PP but the only criteria she could get her PP on was her human rights. similar set ups in Devon and Somerset only get temporary permission usually for 5 years in which time they have to prove they can make a go of it, if not then they are evicted.