Article 8 ECHR, gypsies and some remaining problems after South Buckinghamshire
Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; April 2003, 382-396(15)Publication details: 2003Subject(s):- SOUTH BUCKS DC V PORTER
- CHICHESTER DC V SEARLE AND OTHERS
- WREXHAM BC V BERRY
- HERTSMERE BC V HARTY AND OTHERS
- CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
- TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S187(B)
- GYPSIES
- BREACH
- PLANNING CONTROL
- DOE CIRCULAR 01/1994
- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
- Planning and development
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS66547 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 121855-1001 |
Examines the implications of the CA's decisions in four appeals, commonly known as "South Bucks DC v Porter" (CA Abs65647), concerning the application of the European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 to the court's discretion under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s187b. Addresses the criticism that the judgment may have undermined s187b as an effective tool to end breaches of planning control. Also seeks to set the judgment in the context of the history of injunctive relief for breaches of planning control [Taken partly from journal headnote}.