Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 164 (Jul)
Neutral Citation: [2002] EWHC 1383 (Admin)
Court: Administrative Court
Judge:

Richards J

Representation 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.
Judgment Dates: 11 July 2002

Catchwords

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.

The Case

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

Practice Areas

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