000			01721cam a2200253 4500
001			ABS64030
008			000000n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u112816
100			_aDewar, D
245			_aLaw lords avert a major disaster for secretary of state
260			_c2001
490			_aPlanning (for the Natural and Built Environment) _v(1419) 18 May 2001, 10-11(2)
520			_aConsiders the recent HL ruling in the "Alconbury" case that found no incompatibility between the SoS's planning decision powers and the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6. The justification for allowing the SoS to continue making both policy and planning application decisions included the following points: the SoS exercises an administrative rather than judicial function and is accountable to the electorate for his policy; planning inspectors act as safeguards, offering SoS advice on planning decisions which is usually accepted; substituting the SoS with an independent body would be chaotic and undemocratic. Presents contrasting views from planning experts on the decision, and suggests the government will face continued pressure to reform the present system.
590			_aABS
650			_aHUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
650			_aPLANNING SYSTEM
650			_aPLANNING APPEALS
650			_aPLANNING APPLICATIONS
650			_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6
650			_aR V SOS ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS EX P ALCONBURY DEVELOPMENTS
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
856			_uhttps://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200001/ldjudgmt/jd010509/alcon-1.htm
942			_n0
999			_c67161 _d67161