Image from Google Jackets

R (on the application of Chisnell and another) v Richmond upon Thames BC

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [2005] 05 EG 203 (CS)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2005] EWHC 134 (Admin), 27 January 2005. Highlights that local authorities must consider the adverse effect of developments on other properties before granting planning permission. R granted planning permission for a series of extensions to the interested party (D)'s property. C argued that the extensions would have an adverse effect upon the local areas' character and their property's amenities. R had already twice refused planning permission for similar proposals at the same property; in this case the proposal was for a single integrated unit rather than a separate residential unit. R allowed planning permission on the basis that the previous refusals had not been made on aesthetic or amenity grounds. C challenged the validity of the planning permission, claiming that the R had misunderstood why the previous applications had been refused, ignored the adverse effect of the development on their property and failed to give their reasons for their decision under the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure)(England) Amendment Order 1995 Art 22. "Held": the claim was allowed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article ABS68763 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 128943-1001

[2005] EWHC 134 (Admin), 27 January 2005. Highlights that local authorities must consider the adverse effect of developments on other properties before granting planning permission. R granted planning permission for a series of extensions to the interested party (D)'s property. C argued that the extensions would have an adverse effect upon the local areas' character and their property's amenities. R had already twice refused planning permission for similar proposals at the same property; in this case the proposal was for a single integrated unit rather than a separate residential unit. R allowed planning permission on the basis that the previous refusals had not been made on aesthetic or amenity grounds. C challenged the validity of the planning permission, claiming that the R had misunderstood why the previous applications had been refused, ignored the adverse effect of the development on their property and failed to give their reasons for their decision under the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure)(England) Amendment Order 1995 Art 22. "Held": the claim was allowed.