Lambeth LBC v SOS for the Environment and the London Residuary Body
Language: English Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; 1992 JPL 759-768(6)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: CA 11 March 1992. The local authority (L) challenged the SoS decision allowing planning permission for redevelopment of County Hall. L argued that (1) the SoS had not paid sufficient regard to the policy set out in DoE Circular 8/87 "Historic buildings and conservation areas: policy and procedures (2) he had misdirected himself and had failed to have regard to public access to Jubilee Gardens and (3) failure to make arrangements for a contiguency fund to safeguard the building in the event of a developer not being able to complete the work. CA dismissed the appeal. It was impossible to prove that the SoS had failed to consider DoE Circular 8/87 and the contigency fund fell outside the ambit of planning control. Public access to Jubilee Gardens was to be secured under a S106 agreement with covenants.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS46812 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 59551-1001 |
CA 11 March 1992. The local authority (L) challenged the SoS decision allowing planning permission for redevelopment of County Hall. L argued that (1) the SoS had not paid sufficient regard to the policy set out in DoE Circular 8/87 "Historic buildings and conservation areas: policy and procedures (2) he had misdirected himself and had failed to have regard to public access to Jubilee Gardens and (3) failure to make arrangements for a contiguency fund to safeguard the building in the event of a developer not being able to complete the work. CA dismissed the appeal. It was impossible to prove that the SoS had failed to consider DoE Circular 8/87 and the contigency fund fell outside the ambit of planning control. Public access to Jubilee Gardens was to be secured under a S106 agreement with covenants.