PPGs were misconstrued
Language: English Series: Chartered Surveyor Weekly ; vol 31 no 7 17/5/90 p90Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: In R v SoS for the Environment ex parte Windsor and Maidenhead RBC , CA 26 April 1990, it was held that it was the inspector`s prerogative to take the view that `all` residential use was inappropriate, the finding of appropriateness did not decide the matter but simply regulated who had to satisfy the `burden of persuasion`. Finally his lordship agreed that the inspector erred in confining the SoS`s policy for the re-use of redundant buildings in a green belt to buildings which were formerly agricultural.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB2619-52 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 57725-1001 |
In R v SoS for the Environment ex parte Windsor and Maidenhead RBC , CA 26 April 1990, it was held that it was the inspector`s prerogative to take the view that `all` residential use was inappropriate, the finding of appropriateness did not decide the matter but simply regulated who had to satisfy the `burden of persuasion`. Finally his lordship agreed that the inspector erred in confining the SoS`s policy for the re-use of redundant buildings in a green belt to buildings which were formerly agricultural.