000			01704cab a2200253 4500
001			ABS67652
008			040402n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u125739
100			_aCatterall, S.
245			_aWhat's the alternative?
260			_c2004
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0410) 6 March 2004, 176-177(2)
520			_aDiscusses recent case law looking at whether alternative sites are material in an application for planning permission. "Trust House Forte Hotels Ltd v SoS Environment and another" ([1986] JPL 834) established three basic principles: i) that where a site can be developed in a way that is satisfactory in terms of planning, alternative sites would not have to be considered, ii) alternative sites may be considered where there are planning objections and iii) the planning authority may reasonably conclude that alternatives do exist even if they are not identified. "R v Mansfield DC ex p Jones" ([2003] EWCA Civ 1408, [2003] PLSCS 227) left open the possibility of refusing an application on the basis that a better alternative site was available. "Phillips v First SoS" ([2003] EWHC 2415 (Admin), [2003] 44 EG 169 (CS)) sets out how planning authorities should deal with any development where planning policies require a consideration of alternative sites.
590			_aABS
650			_aALTERNATIVE SITES
650			_aMATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
650			_aPLANNING OBJECTIONS
650			_aTRUST HOUSE FORTE HOTELS LTD V SOS ENVIRONMENT AND ANOTHER
650			_aR V MANSFIELD DC EX P JONES
650			_aPHILLIPS V FIRST SOS
650			_aPLANNING POLICY
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
942			_n0
999			_c74357 _d74357