000			01707cam a2200301 4500
001			ABS64031
008			000000n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u112860
100			_aHolgate, D
245			_aBusiness as usual
260			_c2001
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0120) 19 May 2001, 218-219(2)
520			_aExamines the HL ruling in the "Alconbury" case which found that the planning system does not contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, because the powers of the SoS Environment are essentially administrative not judicial. Discusses the case in some detail, with reference to the High Court's decision in "R v SoS Environment ex parte Holding & Barnes plc", the European view in "Bryan v United Kingdom", the jurisdiction of the SoS Environment, and the HL criticism of the High Court's reasoning in "Alconbury". Highlights the parties who are likely to benefit or lose out from the HL ruling, and concludes that the decision has failed to answer several fundamental points.
590			_aABS
650			_aPLANNING APPEALS
650			_aPLANNING DECISIONS
650			_aPLANNING PROCESS
650			_aJURISDICTION
650			_aPLANNING SYSTEM
650			_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6
650			_aR V SOS ENVIRONMENT EX P HOLDING AND BARNES PLC
650			_aBYRAN V UNITED KINGDOM
650			_aR V SOS ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS EX P ALCONBURY DEVELOPMENTS
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
700			_aGilbey, I
856			_uhttps://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200001/ldjudgmt/jd010509/alcon-1.htm
942			_n0
999			_c67181 _d67181