000			01395cam a2200229 4500
001			ABS64590
008			011004n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u114994
100			_aEdwards, M.
245			_aAlconbury revisited
260			_c2001
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0139) 29 September 2001, 139(1)
520			_aConsiders the latest aspect of the planning system to be challenged under European Convention on Human Rights Article 6. Discusses "R (on the application of Kathro) v Rhondda Cynon Taff CBC", which considered whether the granting of planning permission by an interested planning authority is in breach of Article 6. The local planning authority had applied for outline planning permission for a large-scale development on land they owned situated within their own area. The planning application had yet to be determined when the case came to court, and the claimants' Article 6 challenge failed. The ruling suggests that the availability of judicial review may be sufficient to provide compatibility where there are no factual issues.
590			_aABS
650			_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6
650			_aR V RHONDDA CYNON TAFF BC EX P KATHRO AND OTHERS
650			_aALCONBURY
650			_aINCOMPATIBILITY
690			_aPlanning and development _96259
700			_aMartin, J.
942			_n0
999			_c68476 _d68476