000			01842cam a2200349 4500
001			ABS68458
008			041117n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u128021
100			_aEdwards, M.
245			_aTowering decision
260			_c2004
490			_aSolicitors' Journal _v148(39) 15 October 2004, 1176-1178(2)
520			_aLooks at "R v SOS for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex P Holding and Barnes plc" (QBD, Abs63468), which was the first major human rights challenge to the planning system. The House of Lords rejected a challenge based on alleged Article 6 incompatibilities of the procedures for determination of planning appeals and called-in planning applications. Examines several cases in light of the Human Rights Act 1998. Concludes the decision in "Lough v First Secretary of State and Bankside Developments Ltd" ([2004] EWCA Civ 905, [2004] 1 WLR 2557) shows that the courts are extremely reluctant to permit human rights challenges to the planning system in all but the most peripheral cases.
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
650			_aHUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
650			_aR V SOS ENVIRONMENT EX P HOLDING AND BARNES PLC
650			_aLOUGH V FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND BANKSIDE DEVELOPMENTS LTD
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
650			_aUNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS
650			_aR (SAMAROO) V SOS FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
650			_aEGAN V SOS FOR TRANSPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
650			_aR V FIRST SOS EX P GOSBEE
650			_aLOPEZ OSTRA V SPAIN COUNCIL OF EUROPE
650			_aGUERRA V ITALY
650			_aHATTON V UNITED KINGDOM
650			_aMARCIC V THAMES WATER UTILITIES LTD
650			_aHARROW LBC V QAZI
650			_aR V IPSWICH BC AND ANOTHER EX P MALSTER
690			_aPLANNING-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c118326 _d118326