Steinberg and Sykes v SoS for the Environment and Camden LBC
Steinberg and Sykes v SoS for the Environment and Camden LBC
- 1989
- See also Abs
- Journal of Planning and Environment Law 1989 JPL 258-263(6) .
QBD 25 November 1988. In February 1987 Devon and Wood Property Ltd applied for planning permission to erect a two storey house on an unused derelict piece of land in Kentish Town . The site lay within a recently designated conservation area . The council refused planning permission; the developers appealed. The appeal was dealt with by written representations. The Leighton Road Neighbourhood Association, of which the applicants (S) were members made representations to the council but were not informed of the appeal until well after it was made and shortly before the Inspectors site visit. They rapidly produced written representations but they were not available before the visit. The Inspector granted planning permission. S appealed on the grounds that a) the decision did not comply with Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s277(8) and b) they had not been allowed sufficient time to present their representations. It was held that the Inspector had not sufficiently considered the area`s
QBD 25 November 1988. In February 1987 Devon and Wood Property Ltd applied for planning permission to erect a two storey house on an unused derelict piece of land in Kentish Town . The site lay within a recently designated conservation area . The council refused planning permission; the developers appealed. The appeal was dealt with by written representations. The Leighton Road Neighbourhood Association, of which the applicants (S) were members made representations to the council but were not informed of the appeal until well after it was made and shortly before the Inspectors site visit. They rapidly produced written representations but they were not available before the visit. The Inspector granted planning permission. S appealed on the grounds that a) the decision did not comply with Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s277(8) and b) they had not been allowed sufficient time to present their representations. It was held that the Inspector had not sufficiently considered the area`s