| 000 | 01380cab a2200181 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | X1462 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1994 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u17239 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 245 | _aR V Canterbury CC, Robert Brett & Sons Ltd, ex parte Springimage Ltd | ||
| 260 | _c1994 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aJournal of Planning and Environment Law _v(1994) JPL 427-440(15) |
||
| 520 | _aApplication for judicial review - reval developer - retail development - section 106 agreement - section 54A - locus standi - application of section 54A - planning committee misdirected by Planning Officer`s Report - section 54A required local planning authorities to determine applications in accordance with development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise and not merely to have regard to them - the deficiency in the officer`s report conflated the two requirements and misstated the position - the resolution was ultra vires in so far as it resulted from a misapplication of the statutory provision - a section 106 agreement under section 106(1)(a) could improve a Grampian type restriction on the timing of the development - discretion to quash not exercised there was no real possibility of the committee`s decision being any different. (Headnote from Journal). | ||
| 690 | _aPLANNING LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c04/03/1997 | ||
| 999 |
_c11431 _d11431 |
||