Discusses the "Alconbury" case which questioned the validity of a planning system that appeared to be in contravention of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 6. In the event, the HL ([2001] UKHL 23, Abs64296) concluded that the system was fair and was within the requirements of Art 6. This article examines subsequent case law where the planning system adheres to the principle of Art 6. "Bovis Homes v New Forest DC"; "Alfred McAlpine Developments Ltd v SoS Environment" ([2002] EWHC 483 (Admin), unreported), where a local plan system was pronounced as Art 6 compliant and "Hatton and others v United Kingdom" (ECHR, [2003] All ER (D)122 (Jul) where there was a perceived violation of Art 8 and subsequently Art 13. Only the violation of Art 13 was subsequently upheld. The article concludes that the Human Rights Act 1998 has not had the revolutionary effect that was initially suggested.