Applying Alconbury: Article 6, third parties and development plans
Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; June 2002, 661-673(13)Publication details: 2002Subject(s):- CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6
- HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
- THIRD PARTY RIGHTS
- LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS
- BRYAN V UK
- R V SOS ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS EX P ALCONBURY DEVELOPMENTS
- R V HAMPSHIRE CC V VETTERLAIN
- R V RHONDDA CYNON TAFF BC EX P KATHRO AND OTHERS
- R V IPSWICH BC AND ANOTHER EX P MALSTER
- FRIENDS PROVIDENT LIFE OFFICE V SOS ENVIRONMENT AND OTHERS
- BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC V GLOUCESTER CITY COUNCIL
- R V SOS TRANSPORT AND ANOTHER EX P CUMMINS
- ADLARD V SOS ENVIRONMENT
- J S BLOOR V SWINDON BC
- BOVIS HOMES V NEW FOREST DC
- ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS65760 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 2 | Available | 118952-1002 | |
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS65760 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 118952-1001 |
Considers the extent to which arguments based on the European Convention on Human Rights Art 6(1) are likely to be relevant in the context of third party rights and the development plan process. Provides a brief analysis of "Alconbury" in order to examine the wider principles that may be derived from the HL decision. Discusses a number of post-Alconbury cases relating to third party rights and development plans in which "Alconbury" has been interpreted and applied. Concludes with views on the likely future of Art 6 in the area of planning law. Case law. [Taken partly from journal headnote].