Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 239 (Nov)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
Judge:

David Holgate QC sitting as a deputy judge of the high court

Representation Anthony Dinkin QC (instructed by Penningtons) for the claimant.
  Philip Coppel (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
  The second defendant did not appear and was not represented.
Judgment Dates: 24 November 2008

Catchwords

Town and country planning - Permission for development - Refusal - Appeal - Local planning authority refusing permission for development - Proposed development adjacent to site having hazardous substances consent - Claimant appealing to Secretary of State - Planning inspector finding proposed development would unacceptably increase number of people exposed to risks associated with proximity to site with hazardous substances consent - Claimant appealing against inspector's finding - Whether proposed development would unacceptably increase number of people exposed to risks - s 288 - s 4 - Planning (Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations) 1999, .

The Case

Town and country planning Permission for development. Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court: When hearing an appeal against a refusal of planning permission, the weight accorded different pieces of evidence was a matter for the planning inspector. Where the available evidence and the cases advanced by the parties had been reviewed, the inspector had been entitled to reach the conclusions that she had and her decision would stand.

Practice Areas

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