Image from Google Jackets

Wokingham DC v SoS for the Environment and Bryant Homes (Southern) Ltd

Language: English Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; (1989) JPL 424-430(7)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: QBD 11 July 1988. Appeal by local authority (W) from Inspector`s (I) decision in favour of developer (B), An application for planning permission to build 19 houses on a 4.8 acre site had been rejected by W. I concluded there was no reason for the refusal . The original decision had turned on the impact of the proposed development on surrounding land and traffic . I drew attention to the significant shortfall in the 5-year supply of housing land called for by DoE Circular 15/84 . Two days after the original hearing a review county structure plan was published. I did not know of its proposed modifications, which were capable of being a " material consideration ". In QBD W argued that I had ignored this material consideration. The significance of the review was that W`s approach to calculating housing needs was justified. W contended that the review would have been known within the DoE beforehand, so I should have been aware of it and should have taken it into account. QBD rejected this
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS40839 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 26291-1001

QBD 11 July 1988. Appeal by local authority (W) from Inspector`s (I) decision in favour of developer (B), An application for planning permission to build 19 houses on a 4.8 acre site had been rejected by W. I concluded there was no reason for the refusal . The original decision had turned on the impact of the proposed development on surrounding land and traffic . I drew attention to the significant shortfall in the 5-year supply of housing land called for by DoE Circular 15/84 . Two days after the original hearing a review county structure plan was published. I did not know of its proposed modifications, which were capable of being a " material consideration ". In QBD W argued that I had ignored this material consideration. The significance of the review was that W`s approach to calculating housing needs was justified. W contended that the review would have been known within the DoE beforehand, so I should have been aware of it and should have taken it into account. QBD rejected this