000			01534cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS47513
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u62334
041			_aeng
245			_aS. South Holland DC ex parte Hey and Croft Ltd
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aJournal of Planning and Environment Law _v1992 JPL 1025-1030(3)
520			_aQBD 20 December 1991. Concerned the interpretation of `description` and `character` in the context of Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1989 reg 8. Involved a dispute over fees for a second planning application. Having been refused planning permission for residential development, the applicants submitted a second application. A fee of £3,800 accompanied the first application. However no fee was sent with the second application on the grounds that the application complied with the requirements of Regulation 8. After protest, the applicants paid a second fee. In dismissing an application for judicial review, HC held that the words `character` and `description` were ordinary english words devoid of mystique or technical meaning and were to be understood in the context in which they appear in the regulations. The planning authority should decide whether or not the developments were of the same character.
650			_aFEES
650			_aPLANNING APPLICATIONS
650			_aSECOND APPLICATION
690			_aPLANNING LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c38741 _d38741