||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 164 (Jul)
|| EWHC 1383 (Admin)
||Anthony Smith QC and Nadia Sharif (instructed by Marie Ainsworth, Solihull) for the claimant.
||Timothy Corner QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the first defendant.
||Mark Lowe QC (instructed by Wragge & Co) for the second defendant.
||11 July 2002
Town and country planning - Permission for development - Planning authority - Planning authority failing to determine application for planning permission - Developer appealing to Secretary of State - Planning authority indicating objections to development - Secretary of State's inspector allowing appeal - Authority appealing on grounds inspector wrongly applying PPG3 - Whether inspector in error.
PPG3 was not to be read as including a specific development control policy meaning that a new development should be an improvement over the existing position. The guidance was concerned with broad and potentially competing objectives, including matters such as the efficient use of land, and maximising the use of urban sites, as well as promoting attractive, high quality living environments. That did not translate into a specific policy that each new development had to be an improvement, in terms of housing quality, or quality of the environment. More efficient use of land, in a sustainable location, was to be regarded as desirable in itself
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- 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