000			01884cab a2200229 4500
001			L129516
008			050426n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129516
041			_aeng
100			_aMiller, Chris
245			_aPlaces and people _bwhat is the point of town and country planning?
260			_c2005
490			_aJournal of Planning and Environment Law _vApril 2005, 434-440(7)
520			_aConsiders the implications of "South Bucks DC v Porter" ([2003] UKHL 26, Abs66831) ("Porter 1") and "South Bucks DC v Porter" ([2004] UKHL 33, Abs68049) ("Porter 2") for planning law and practice. "South Bucks DC v Porter" is the latest in a long series of planning cases brought in the domestic courts as well as the European Court of Human Rights by English gypsies and travellers who are unable to site their mobile homes on land in their possession. HL contended in "Porter 1" that the grant of an injunction and a planning determination should be seen as independent. In "Porter 2" HL upheld that personal circumstances can constitute material considerations in planning law. Concludes that after "Porter 2" the view that town and country planning is about the use of land with people seen not as bearers of fundamental rights but simply as users of land, can be suspended once failures in social policy begin to threaten human rights.
590			_aIKA290405
650			_aSOUTH BUCKS DC V PORTER
650			_aEUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT-DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
856			_uhttps://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030522/wrex-1.htm _zView "Porter 1" free of charge at www.parliament.uk...
856			_uhttps://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040701/south-1.htm _zView "Porter 2" free of charge at www.parliament.uk...
942			_n0
999			_c75142 _d75142