000			01191cab a2200193 4500
001			ABS45778
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u55008
041			_aeng
245			_aTyler v Avon CC
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aJournal of Planning and Environment Law _v(1992) JPL 62-66(5)
520			_aCA 26 June 1991. Protesting against the inclusion of his land in the green belt of a local plan, T took A to court and lost. However, the decision was reversed on appeal, where the inspector had construed the objection to refer only to T`s land, and thus by implication, included neighbouring plots in the plan by default. As the area concerned was of such a shape that all the plots would be affected either way by the decision, the inspector used the argument that the viability of the whole required the inclusion of the part. But, conversely, as T`s reasoning was accepted by the CA, the local plan had to be quashed for the entire area. The dangers of interpreting objections too narrowly are pointed out.
650			_aLOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS
690			_aPLANNING LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c33661 _d33661