Image from Google Jackets

Barnet Meeting Room Trust v SoS for the Environment and Barnet LBC

Language: English Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; 1993 JPL 739-761(23)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: QBD 24 July 1992. Meeting Room for worship - edge of Green Belt - ministerial policy on Green Belt - appeal considered - relevance off previous ministerial decisions - application Pehrsson test of appropriateness - PPG2 (1988) para 13 `institutions standing in extensive grounds` - appeal to High Court - Auld J held that (1) Whether a prosposed developmentmet the description of `institution standing in extensive grounds` was in most cases a metter of fact and degree and planning judgement. (2) The ministers decsion was unfair to the Trust by reason of inconsitancy of the interpretationof policy. (3) There was a technical misapplication of the Pehrsson test as to `very special circumstances`. The SoS whilst not in terms following the precise sequence of reasoning indicated by Pehrsson had done so in substance when his decision latter was read as a whole. (4) Even if the SoS is deemd to know all the decisions notionally made by him it would not have made any difference to the outcome of
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article X970 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 68472-1001

QBD 24 July 1992. Meeting Room for worship - edge of Green Belt - ministerial policy on Green Belt - appeal considered - relevance off previous ministerial decisions - application Pehrsson test of appropriateness - PPG2 (1988) para 13 `institutions standing in extensive grounds` - appeal to High Court - Auld J held that (1) Whether a prosposed developmentmet the description of `institution standing in extensive grounds` was in most cases a metter of fact and degree and planning judgement. (2) The ministers decsion was unfair to the Trust by reason of inconsitancy of the interpretationof policy. (3) There was a technical misapplication of the Pehrsson test as to `very special circumstances`. The SoS whilst not in terms following the precise sequence of reasoning indicated by Pehrsson had done so in substance when his decision latter was read as a whole. (4) Even if the SoS is deemd to know all the decisions notionally made by him it would not have made any difference to the outcome of