000			01667cam a2200265 4500
001			ABS63210
008			000000n2000 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u109685
100			_aEdwards, M
245			_aIn need of clarification
260			_c2000
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0047) 25 November 2000, 175(1)
520			_aExamines how the revision of PPG6 and subsequent refinement by a ministerial statement have caused confusion in planning applications for retail development. Describes the case of "Tesco Stores v SoS Environment" which questioned whether an extension to an existing store in a district centre required the applicant to demonstrate need. Tesco argued that the application site was within a district centre, an 'existing centre' as defined by the statement. The inspector interpreted 'existing centre' as only applicable to town centres and claimed that Tesco had to satisfy the need test. Tesco challenged this decision under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s288, on the grounds that the inspector had failed to correctly interpret government guidance on retail policy and did not determine whether the store was within a district centre. Tesco's challenge was allowed due to the ambiguity between PPG6 and the statement.
590			_aABS
650			_aRETAIL DEVELOPMENT
650			_aTERMINOLOGY
650			_aTESCO STORES LTD V SOS ENVIRONMENT & ANOR
650			_aTOWN CENTRES
650			_aNEED TEST
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S288
650			_aPLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE SIX
650			_aPLANNING PERMISSION
690			_aPlanning and development _96259
942			_n0
999			_c65482 _d65482