000			01641cab a2200217 4500
001			L129934
008			050606n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129934
041			_aeng
100			_aScharf, Daniel
245		4	_aThe duty is to reason why _bproviding reasons for granting planning permission
260			_c2005
490			_aJournal of Planning and Environment Law _vJune 2005, 747-752(6)
520			_aLooks in detail at "R (on the application of Wall) v Brighton and Hove City Council" ([2005] EWHC 2582 (Admin)), one of the rare cases taken against a local planning authority resulting from the unstructured way in which a planning permission decision was reached. The judgment explained how the statutory requirement to give reasons for the grant of planning permission in the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 2003 Art 22 should be discharged and how the council in this case had failed in its duty. Looks at the implications of the "Wall" decision. Concludes that the judgment in "Wall" is an early indication about the ways in which the requirement to provide summary reasons for approval,set out in Art 22(1) of the 2003 Order, can be used to structure committee decision-making on route to granting planning permissions.
590			_aIKA070605
650			_aR V BRIGHTON AND HOVE CITY COUNCIL
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2003 ART 22
690			_aPlanning and development _96259
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/2582.html _zView the decision free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c75355 _d75355