Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2005] All ER (D) 278 (Jan)
Court: Administrative Court
Judge:

Newman J
Representation Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by Richard Buxton) for the claimant.
  Tim Mould (instructed by London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 27 January 2005

Catchwords

Town and country planning - Development - General development order - Procedure - Planning committee - Previous refusal of permission - Planning committee not bound by previous decisions - Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (England) Amendment Order 1995, , art 22.

The Case

In the majority of cases art22 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (England) Amendment Order 1995, required that a planning committee should have given their decision by way of a separate summary of reasons. In the instant case, there were a range of arguments over many issues and matters that had needed to be resolved. The present case had illustrated that simply to refer the public or interested parties to the planning application report and the minutes of the planning committee meeting was not enough to fully shed light on how any particular decision had been reached or to properly comply with art22 of the Order.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.

Lexis®Library

  • The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
  • Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
  • Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary