000			01943cab a2200265 4500
001			ABS67359
008			040107n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u124747
100			_aPritchard, B.
245		4	_aThe rise and fall of human rights in planning
260			_c2003
490			_aTown & Country Planning _v72(10) November 2003, 306(1)
520			_aDiscusses the "Alconbury" case which questioned the validity of a planning system that appeared to be in contravention of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 6. In the event, the HL ([2001] UKHL 23, Abs64296) concluded that the system was fair and was within the requirements of Art 6. This article examines subsequent case law where the planning system adheres to the principle of Art 6. "Bovis Homes v New Forest DC"; "Alfred McAlpine Developments Ltd v SoS Environment" ([2002] EWHC 483 (Admin), unreported), where a local plan system was pronounced as Art 6 compliant and "Hatton and others v United Kingdom" (ECHR, [2003] All ER (D)122 (Jul) where there was a perceived violation of Art 8 and subsequently Art 13. Only the violation of Art 13 was subsequently upheld. The article concludes that the Human Rights Act 1998 has not had the revolutionary effect that was initially suggested.
590			_aABS
650			_aBOVIS HOMES V NEW FOREST DC
650			_aALFRED MCALPINE DEVELOPMENTS LTD V SOS ENVIRONMENT
650			_aR V SOS ENVIRONMENT EX P ALCONBURY DEVELOPMENTS
650			_aHUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
650			_aHATTON V UNITED KINGDOM
650			_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6
650			_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 14
650			_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
942			_n0
999			_c74036 _d74036