Image from Google Jackets

Towering decision

By: Series: Solicitors' Journal ; 148(39) 15 October 2004, 1176-1178(2)Publication details: 2004Subject(s): Summary: Looks at "R v SOS for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex P Holding and Barnes plc" (QBD, Abs63468), which was the first major human rights challenge to the planning system. The House of Lords rejected a challenge based on alleged Article 6 incompatibilities of the procedures for determination of planning appeals and called-in planning applications. Examines several cases in light of the Human Rights Act 1998. Concludes the decision in "Lough v First Secretary of State and Bankside Developments Ltd" ([2004] EWCA Civ 905, [2004] 1 WLR 2557) shows that the courts are extremely reluctant to permit human rights challenges to the planning system in all but the most peripheral cases.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article ABS68458 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 128021-1001

Looks at "R v SOS for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex P Holding and Barnes plc" (QBD, Abs63468), which was the first major human rights challenge to the planning system. The House of Lords rejected a challenge based on alleged Article 6 incompatibilities of the procedures for determination of planning appeals and called-in planning applications. Examines several cases in light of the Human Rights Act 1998. Concludes the decision in "Lough v First Secretary of State and Bankside Developments Ltd" ([2004] EWCA Civ 905, [2004] 1 WLR 2557) shows that the courts are extremely reluctant to permit human rights challenges to the planning system in all but the most peripheral cases.