000			01873cam a2200193 4500
001			ABS68763
008			050304n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u128943
041			_aeng
245			_aR (on the application of Chisnell and another) v Richmond upon Thames BC
260			_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2005] 05 EG 203 (CS)
520			_a[2005] EWHC 134 (Admin), 27 January 2005. Highlights that local authorities must consider the adverse effect of developments on other properties before granting planning permission. R granted planning permission for a series of extensions to the interested party (D)'s property. C argued that the extensions would have an adverse effect upon the local areas' character and their property's amenities. R had already twice refused planning permission for similar proposals at the same property; in this case the proposal was for a single integrated unit rather than a separate residential unit. R allowed planning permission on the basis that the previous refusals had not been made on aesthetic or amenity grounds. C challenged the validity of the planning permission, claiming that the R had misunderstood why the previous applications had been refused, ignored the adverse effect of the development on their property and failed to give their reasons for their decision under the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure)(England) Amendment Order 1995 Art 22. "Held": the claim was allowed.
590			_aABS
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE)(ENGLAND) AMENDMENT ORDER 1995 ART 22
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT-DEVELOPMENT CONTROL-PLANNING APPLICATIONS
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/134.html _zView the judgment at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c74878 _d74878