R v SoS Environment Transport and the Regions, ex parte Holding & Barnes plc and others
R v SoS Environment Transport and the Regions, ex parte Holding & Barnes plc and others
- 2001
- Estates Gazette [2001] 05 EG 170-186(17) .
QBD 13 December 2000.In a conjoined hearing of three applications for judicial review and an application by the SoS it was contended that the SoS's powers to call in or recover planning decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Highways Act 1961 contravened the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6(1). The applications were on the grounds that the SoS is not an independent and impartial tribunal as required by the Article and that the Human Rights Act 1998 s6(1) meant that the SoS's actions were unlawful. The SoS did not argue that he himself was such a tribunal but contended that right to appeal to the High Court, together with the role of the High Court on review, meant that the process as a whole was in accordance with the Article. "Held": Declaration of incompatibility ordered. The SoS's powers were not in accordance with the Article but his actions were not unlawful as s6(2) of the Act applied.
ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT 1981
Compulsory purchase
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6(2)
HIGHWAYS ACT 1980
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
PLANNING APPEALS
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
PLANNING INSPECTORATE
PLANNING SYSTEM
R V SOS ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS EX P ALCONBURY DEVELOPMENTS
R V SOS ENVIRONMENT EX P HOLDING AND BARNES PLC
R V SOS ENVIRONMENT EX P LEGAL AND GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY
R V SOS ENVIRONMENT EX P PREMIER LEISURE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992
QBD 13 December 2000.In a conjoined hearing of three applications for judicial review and an application by the SoS it was contended that the SoS's powers to call in or recover planning decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Highways Act 1961 contravened the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6(1). The applications were on the grounds that the SoS is not an independent and impartial tribunal as required by the Article and that the Human Rights Act 1998 s6(1) meant that the SoS's actions were unlawful. The SoS did not argue that he himself was such a tribunal but contended that right to appeal to the High Court, together with the role of the High Court on review, meant that the process as a whole was in accordance with the Article. "Held": Declaration of incompatibility ordered. The SoS's powers were not in accordance with the Article but his actions were not unlawful as s6(2) of the Act applied.
ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT 1981
Compulsory purchase
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6(2)
HIGHWAYS ACT 1980
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
PLANNING APPEALS
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
PLANNING INSPECTORATE
PLANNING SYSTEM
R V SOS ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS EX P ALCONBURY DEVELOPMENTS
R V SOS ENVIRONMENT EX P HOLDING AND BARNES PLC
R V SOS ENVIRONMENT EX P LEGAL AND GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY
R V SOS ENVIRONMENT EX P PREMIER LEISURE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992