Image from Google Jackets

R v Cotswold DC ex p. Barrington Parish Council

Language: English Series: Property, planning & compensation reports ; [1998] 75 P&CR 515-532(18)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: QBD 24 April 1997. The application site was a disused military air base 3 miles outside the parish boundary. The first respondents wrote to the applicants stating that they would try to keep them informed on progress in planning the future of the site. A draft planning brief was produced in 1995 and the applicants did not respond during the public consultation process. Planning permission was granted in 1996 for refurbishmet works to existing houses and change of use of land to residential curtilage. The applicants were not consulted on the application and eight weeks after permission was granted applied for judicial review of the decision on the grounds that, among other things, they had not been consulted. "Held" the applicants had sufficient interest in the matter and there was no good resaon to extend time as there was no reasonable or legitimate expectation for consultation. Application for leave dismissed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS58940 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 87099-1001

QBD 24 April 1997. The application site was a disused military air base 3 miles outside the parish boundary. The first respondents wrote to the applicants stating that they would try to keep them informed on progress in planning the future of the site. A draft planning brief was produced in 1995 and the applicants did not respond during the public consultation process. Planning permission was granted in 1996 for refurbishmet works to existing houses and change of use of land to residential curtilage. The applicants were not consulted on the application and eight weeks after permission was granted applied for judicial review of the decision on the grounds that, among other things, they had not been consulted. "Held" the applicants had sufficient interest in the matter and there was no good resaon to extend time as there was no reasonable or legitimate expectation for consultation. Application for leave dismissed.