000			02051cab a2200205 4500
001			##L132377
008			060131n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u132377
041	0		_aeng
245			_aR (on the application of Springhall) v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] EWCA Civ, 24 January 2006. Considers whether or not the decision in "R v Harrow LBC ex p Carlton-Conway" ([2002] EWCA Civ 927, (2002) 3 PLR 77) laid down any general principles as to the legality of a planning officer exercising delegated powers of decision-making, where there is any real issue about the meaning or application of a planning policy. Appeal by S against a decision dismissing his claim for judicial review of a decision made by an officer of R, granting planning permission for S's neighbour to demolish a building on his land and to replace it with a new building. S had objected on the grounds that the existing building was of townscape merit and that R's supplementary planning guidance contained a presumption against demolition. The application was not reserved to the planning committee. The judge agreed with the officer's determination that the proposed development complied with the supplementary planning guidance and concluded that the decision in "Carlton-Conway" did not constitute a general principle. "Held": appeal dismissed. The decision in "Carlton-Conway" should not be read as laying down any general principle. There were no grounds for the courts to intrude into the interpretation of planning policy short of illegality or Wednesbury irrationality.
590			_aIKA310106
650	2	4	_aR V RICHMOND UPON THAMES LBC EX P SPRINGHALL
650	2	4	_aR V HARROW LBC EX P CARLTON-CONWAY
650	2	4	_aWEDNESBURY PRINCIPLES
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT-DEVELOPMENT CONTROL-PLANNING ENFORCEMENT
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/19.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c76417 _d76417