R v Cotswold DC ex p. Barrington Parish Council
R v Cotswold DC ex p. Barrington Parish Council
- 1998
- Property, planning & compensation reports [1998] 75 P&CR 515-532(18) .
QBD 24 April 1997. The application site was a disused military air base 3 miles outside the parish boundary. The first respondents wrote to the applicants stating that they would try to keep them informed on progress in planning the future of the site. A draft planning brief was produced in 1995 and the applicants did not respond during the public consultation process. Planning permission was granted in 1996 for refurbishmet works to existing houses and change of use of land to residential curtilage. The applicants were not consulted on the application and eight weeks after permission was granted applied for judicial review of the decision on the grounds that, among other things, they had not been consulted. "Held" the applicants had sufficient interest in the matter and there was no good resaon to extend time as there was no reasonable or legitimate expectation for consultation. Application for leave dismissed.
CCSU V MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVCIE
CONSULTATION
EXTENSION OF TIME
PLANNING BRIEF
R V HM INSPECTORATE OF POLLUTION AND ANOTHER EX P GREENPEACE
R V SOS TRANSPORT EX P PRESVAC ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
R V STRATFORD UPON AVON DC AND ANOTHER EX P JACKSON
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND REFURBISHMENT
QBD 24 April 1997. The application site was a disused military air base 3 miles outside the parish boundary. The first respondents wrote to the applicants stating that they would try to keep them informed on progress in planning the future of the site. A draft planning brief was produced in 1995 and the applicants did not respond during the public consultation process. Planning permission was granted in 1996 for refurbishmet works to existing houses and change of use of land to residential curtilage. The applicants were not consulted on the application and eight weeks after permission was granted applied for judicial review of the decision on the grounds that, among other things, they had not been consulted. "Held" the applicants had sufficient interest in the matter and there was no good resaon to extend time as there was no reasonable or legitimate expectation for consultation. Application for leave dismissed.
CCSU V MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVCIE
CONSULTATION
EXTENSION OF TIME
PLANNING BRIEF
R V HM INSPECTORATE OF POLLUTION AND ANOTHER EX P GREENPEACE
R V SOS TRANSPORT EX P PRESVAC ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
R V STRATFORD UPON AVON DC AND ANOTHER EX P JACKSON
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND REFURBISHMENT