000			01764cam a2200265 4500
001			ABS64022
008			000000n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u112690
100			_aAdlard, H.
245		4	_aThe 'need' for retail development
260			_c2001
490			_aJournal of Planning and Environment Law _vMay 2001, 522-534(13)
520			_aIn "R v Hambleton DC ex p Somerfield Stores Ltd", in late 1998, the court ruled that PPG6 did not require a demonstration of need at planning application stage. In February 1999, Richard Caborn, the then Planning Minister, rebuffed this statement and confirmed that demonstration of need was required. Considers this policy statement and its application to retail development. Also deals with the following issues: the place of policy in planning decisions; the extent to which qualitative retail matters (including competition between retailers) are a material consideration, and thus whether a challenge could be made on the basis that immaterial considerations should be taken into account; whether any decision-maker could be found to have made an irrational decision on whether there is a need for a store when 'need' is not defined, and whether the review of such a decision could be insufficient under the Human Rights Act 1998 [Partly taken from journal headnote].
590			_aABS
650			_aCABORN STATEMENT
650			_aRETAIL DEVELOPMENT
650			_aR V HAMBLETON DC EX P SOMERFIELD STORES LTD
650			_aPLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE SIX
650			_aMATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
650			_aPLANNING POLICY
650			_aPLANNING DECISIONS
650			_aPLANNING APPLICATIONS
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
942			_n0
999			_c67082 _d67082