000			01093cab a2200217 4500
001			WB2619-52
008			090401t1990 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u57725
041			_aeng
245			_aPPGs were misconstrued
260			_c1990
350			_a0
490			_aChartered Surveyor Weekly _vvol 31 no 7 17/5/90 p90
520			_aIn R v SoS for the Environment ex parte Windsor and Maidenhead RBC , CA 26 April 1990, it was held that it was the inspector`s prerogative to take the view that `all` residential use was inappropriate, the finding of appropriateness did not decide the matter but simply regulated who had to satisfy the `burden of persuasion`. Finally his lordship agreed that the inspector erred in confining the SoS`s policy for the re-use of redundant buildings in a green belt to buildings which were formerly agricultural.
650			_aPLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE 1
650			_aPLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE 2
650			_aPLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE 7
690			_aPLANNING LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c35227 _d35227