Image from Google Jackets

South Lakeland DC v SoS for the Environment and another

Language: English Series: New Law Journal ; 142(6538) 7 February 1992, 159-160(2)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: HL 30 January 1992. A diocesan parsonage board applied for outline consent to build a new vicarage on land within the curtilage of an existing vicarage in a village lying within a designated conservation area. Council (S) refused the application on the ground that the proposal would be severely detrimental to the area. An inspector`s decision to uphold this refusal was quashed by the High Court on the ground that the inspector had failed to discharge his duty under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s277(8) to pay special attention to the desirability of `preserving or enhancing` the character or appearance of the conservation area. On appeal by the SoS CA held that the inspector had discharged his duty under s277(8). S appealed to HL which held that `preserving or enhancing` the character or appearance of a conservation area under s277(8) was not restricted to positive contributions to preservation, but included developments that left character or appearance unharmed. Appeal accordi
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS45974 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 56135-1001

HL 30 January 1992. A diocesan parsonage board applied for outline consent to build a new vicarage on land within the curtilage of an existing vicarage in a village lying within a designated conservation area. Council (S) refused the application on the ground that the proposal would be severely detrimental to the area. An inspector`s decision to uphold this refusal was quashed by the High Court on the ground that the inspector had failed to discharge his duty under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s277(8) to pay special attention to the desirability of `preserving or enhancing` the character or appearance of the conservation area. On appeal by the SoS CA held that the inspector had discharged his duty under s277(8). S appealed to HL which held that `preserving or enhancing` the character or appearance of a conservation area under s277(8) was not restricted to positive contributions to preservation, but included developments that left character or appearance unharmed. Appeal accordi