Law lords avert a major disaster for secretary of state
Series: Planning (for the Natural and Built Environment) ; (1419) 18 May 2001, 10-11(2)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: Considers the recent HL ruling in the "Alconbury" case that found no incompatibility between the SoS's planning decision powers and the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6. The justification for allowing the SoS to continue making both policy and planning application decisions included the following points: the SoS exercises an administrative rather than judicial function and is accountable to the electorate for his policy; planning inspectors act as safeguards, offering SoS advice on planning decisions which is usually accepted; substituting the SoS with an independent body would be chaotic and undemocratic. Presents contrasting views from planning experts on the decision, and suggests the government will face continued pressure to reform the present system.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS64030 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 112816-1001 |
Considers the recent HL ruling in the "Alconbury" case that found no incompatibility between the SoS's planning decision powers and the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6. The justification for allowing the SoS to continue making both policy and planning application decisions included the following points: the SoS exercises an administrative rather than judicial function and is accountable to the electorate for his policy; planning inspectors act as safeguards, offering SoS advice on planning decisions which is usually accepted; substituting the SoS with an independent body would be chaotic and undemocratic. Presents contrasting views from planning experts on the decision, and suggests the government will face continued pressure to reform the present system.