||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 136 (Jan)
||Hugh Richards (instructed by Wall, James & Davies) for the claimant.
||Philip Coppel (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor ) for the defendant.
||22 January 2002
Town and county planning - Permission for development - Refusal - Appeal - Claimants applying for permission to develop on site of former railway station - Local planning authority refusing permission on basis that land blending into landscape - Claimants' appeal dismissed by Secretary of State's planning inspector - Claimant arguing that inspector misinterpreting national planning guidance - Whether inspector in error.
It was understandable why there was an exclusion on the reuse of sites under PPG3, where the remains of a previous development had blended into the landscape over the process of time. Once that had happened, there was no sense in requiring further reasons why the site ought not to be reused. Moreover, it was difficult to see why such a site should be regarded differently from a green field site for practical planning purposes. Furthermore, if there were clear reasons that outweighed the use of the land, it was difficult to see why that in itself would not suffice to exclude the land from development.
- 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