Wokingham DC v SoS for the Environment and Bryant Homes (Southern) Ltd
Wokingham DC v SoS for the Environment and Bryant Homes (Southern) Ltd
- 1989
- Journal of Planning and Environment Law (1989) JPL 424-430(7) .
QBD 11 July 1988. Appeal by local authority (W) from Inspector`s (I) decision in favour of developer (B), An application for planning permission to build 19 houses on a 4.8 acre site had been rejected by W. I concluded there was no reason for the refusal . The original decision had turned on the impact of the proposed development on surrounding land and traffic . I drew attention to the significant shortfall in the 5-year supply of housing land called for by DoE Circular 15/84 . Two days after the original hearing a review county structure plan was published. I did not know of its proposed modifications, which were capable of being a " material consideration ". In QBD W argued that I had ignored this material consideration. The significance of the review was that W`s approach to calculating housing needs was justified. W contended that the review would have been known within the DoE beforehand, so I should have been aware of it and should have taken it into account. QBD rejected this
QBD 11 July 1988. Appeal by local authority (W) from Inspector`s (I) decision in favour of developer (B), An application for planning permission to build 19 houses on a 4.8 acre site had been rejected by W. I concluded there was no reason for the refusal . The original decision had turned on the impact of the proposed development on surrounding land and traffic . I drew attention to the significant shortfall in the 5-year supply of housing land called for by DoE Circular 15/84 . Two days after the original hearing a review county structure plan was published. I did not know of its proposed modifications, which were capable of being a " material consideration ". In QBD W argued that I had ignored this material consideration. The significance of the review was that W`s approach to calculating housing needs was justified. W contended that the review would have been known within the DoE beforehand, so I should have been aware of it and should have taken it into account. QBD rejected this