000			01549cam a2200313 4500
001			ABS66547
008			030401n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u121855
100			_aMcCracken, R.
245			_aArticle 8 ECHR, gypsies and some remaining problems after South Buckinghamshire
260			_c2003
490			_aJournal of Planning and Environment Law _vApril 2003, 382-396(15)
520			_aExamines the implications of the CA's decisions in four appeals, commonly known as "South Bucks DC v Porter" (CA Abs65647), concerning the application of the European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 to the court's discretion under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s187b. Addresses the criticism that the judgment may have undermined s187b as an effective tool to end breaches of planning control. Also seeks to set the judgment in the context of the history of injunctive relief for breaches of planning control [Taken partly from journal headnote}.
590			_aABS
650			_aSOUTH BUCKS DC V PORTER
650			_aCHICHESTER DC V SEARLE AND OTHERS
650			_aWREXHAM BC V BERRY
650			_aHERTSMERE BC V HARTY AND OTHERS
650			_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S187(B)
650			_aGYPSIES
650			_aBREACH
650			_aPLANNING CONTROL
650			_aDOE CIRCULAR 01/1994
650			_aINJUNCTIVE RELIEF
690			_aPlanning and development _96259
700			_aJones, G.
942			_n0
999			_c72413 _d72413