000			01508cab a2200253 4500
001			ABS55404
008			090401t1996 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u16207
041			_aeng
245			_aTandridge DC v SoS Environment and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
260			_c1996
350			_a0
490			_aProperty and Compensation Reports _v[1996] 72 P&CR 83-94(7)
520			_aQBD 3 November 1995. Church wished to erect new staff residential accommodation in grounds of existing premises within a Green Belt. T refused outline permission but on appeal SoS granted it. T challenged the Inspector`s decision on the grounds that he had misconstrued and misapplied the relevant policies which applied stricter conditions on Green Belt development than PPG2 (1988). New buildings were only acceptable if an element of necessity was established and the Inspector had applied the test of essentiality incorrectly. "Held" Inspector had used the word `need` in the broader sense and had not applied strict test of necessity required by T`s adopted policies. Application allowed.
650			_aGREEN BELT
650			_aNECESSITY
650			_aPLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE 2 (GREEN BELTS)
650			_aTANDRIDGE DC V SOS ENVIRONMENT AND THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTE
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S288
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
690			_aPLANNING LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c10650 _d10650