| 000 | 01047cam a2200229 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 008 | 000000n2001 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u111774 | ||
| 100 | _aLoveland, I. | ||
| 245 | 3 | _aAn alternative view of the planning appeals process | |
| 260 | _c2001 | ||
| 490 |
_aNew Law Journal _v151(6977) 30 March 2001, 463-464(2) |
||
| 520 | _aPresents a number of arguments that suggest the High Court's judgment in the "Alconbury" case (see: ABS63468) rests on an unnecessarily conservative reading of the Human Rights Act. Questions whether the High Court should extend its jurisdiction per the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s288. Also looks at Article 1 of the First Protocol. | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | _aPLANNING APPEALS | ||
| 650 | _aHUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 | ||
| 650 | _aARTICLE 6 | ||
| 650 | _aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S288 | ||
| 650 | _aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6 | ||
| 650 | _aPLANNING LAW | ||
| 690 |
_aPlanning and development _96259 |
||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c66600 _d66600 |
||