Image from Google Jackets

R v Aylesbury DC and Price, ex parte Chaplin

Language: English Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; [1998] JPL 48-55(8)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: CA 31 July 1997. An application was submitted for planning permission to build two houses at Barracks Farm, Bucks. The Planning Officer reported to the Development Control Sub-Committee of the Aylesbury Vale DC that the site lay within the development boundary of the village and the proposed development would comply with the relevant policy in the Rural Areas Local Plan (RH6). The sub-committee refused against the Planning Officer`s advice. After appeal a public inquiry was arranged. The planning department suggested in view of the forthcoming inquiry, members of the sub-committee should visit the site. After the site visit the applicant was advised to reapply and permission was granted without any reason given for the reverse of the earlier decision. The applicants appealed against the grant of planning permission because the earlier had been dismissed without reasons given. Appeal dismissed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS58203 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 83468-1001

CA 31 July 1997. An application was submitted for planning permission to build two houses at Barracks Farm, Bucks. The Planning Officer reported to the Development Control Sub-Committee of the Aylesbury Vale DC that the site lay within the development boundary of the village and the proposed development would comply with the relevant policy in the Rural Areas Local Plan (RH6). The sub-committee refused against the Planning Officer`s advice. After appeal a public inquiry was arranged. The planning department suggested in view of the forthcoming inquiry, members of the sub-committee should visit the site. After the site visit the applicant was advised to reapply and permission was granted without any reason given for the reverse of the earlier decision. The applicants appealed against the grant of planning permission because the earlier had been dismissed without reasons given. Appeal dismissed.