PPGs were misconstrued
PPGs were misconstrued
- 1990
- Chartered Surveyor Weekly vol 31 no 7 17/5/90 p90 .
In R v SoS for the Environment ex parte Windsor and Maidenhead RBC , CA 26 April 1990, it was held that it was the inspector`s prerogative to take the view that `all` residential use was inappropriate, the finding of appropriateness did not decide the matter but simply regulated who had to satisfy the `burden of persuasion`. Finally his lordship agreed that the inspector erred in confining the SoS`s policy for the re-use of redundant buildings in a green belt to buildings which were formerly agricultural.
PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE 1
PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE 2
PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE 7
In R v SoS for the Environment ex parte Windsor and Maidenhead RBC , CA 26 April 1990, it was held that it was the inspector`s prerogative to take the view that `all` residential use was inappropriate, the finding of appropriateness did not decide the matter but simply regulated who had to satisfy the `burden of persuasion`. Finally his lordship agreed that the inspector erred in confining the SoS`s policy for the re-use of redundant buildings in a green belt to buildings which were formerly agricultural.
PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE 1
PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE 2
PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE 7