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| 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