Towering decision

By:

Edwards, M

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 ( 1 )
Title notes ( 1 )

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

Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)

Previous	No cover image available	No cover image available	No cover image available	No cover image available	No cover image available	No cover image available	No cover image available	Next
Previous	ABS68455 It's all to do with standing	ABS68456 Consultants survey	ABS68457 R v First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Cherwell DC	ABS68458 Towering decision	ABS68459 Robert Fidler v First SOS and Reigate and Banstead BC	ABS68460 The 15-inch shop front opens for business	ABS68461 Develop a good sense of right and wrong	Next

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.

Print
Cite
Send to device
Save record
BIBTEX Dublin Core MARCXML MARC (non-Unicode/MARC-8) MARC (Unicode/UTF-8) MARC (Unicode/UTF-8, Standard) MODS (XML) RIS ISBD
More searches

Search for this title in:
Other Libraries (WorldCat) Other Databases (Google Scholar) Open Library (openlibrary.org)