Planning permission
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette Case Summaries ; (1998) EGCS 12, (1)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: "Bannertown Developments Ltd v SoS of the Environment" QBD 22 January 1998. Planning permission was sought for retail parks in Cirencester by applicant and third respondant. SoS called-in both applications to be determined. The inspector at the inquiry recommended the applications to be refused. SoS accepted inspector`s recommendation, refusing applications, though not agreeing with all reasons. Applicant appealed under Town & Country Planning Act 1990 s288, contending that SoS had not used "sufficient doubt" test under PPG6 and structure plan policy S2 regarding retail impact. Appeal against decision allowed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | WB3406-32 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 84182-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| WB3404-43 Duty of care | WB3405-26 Breach of covenant | WB3406-27 Forfeiture | WB3406-32 Planning permission | WB3406-34 Town and country planning | WB3407-41 Surety | WB3407-53 Capital gains tax |
"Bannertown Developments Ltd v SoS of the Environment" QBD 22 January 1998. Planning permission was sought for retail parks in Cirencester by applicant and third respondant. SoS called-in both applications to be determined. The inspector at the inquiry recommended the applications to be refused. SoS accepted inspector`s recommendation, refusing applications, though not agreeing with all reasons. Applicant appealed under Town & Country Planning Act 1990 s288, contending that SoS had not used "sufficient doubt" test under PPG6 and structure plan policy S2 regarding retail impact. Appeal against decision allowed.