||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 265 (Mar)
||Anna Mathias (instructed by Chesham & Co) for the claimant.
||Sarah-Jane Davies (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
||18 March 2002
Town and country planning - Permission for development - Refusal - Claimants applying for planning permission for extension to dwelling - Local authority failing to determine application within prescribed time period - Inspector refusing permission - Inspector making error of fact - Whether error of fact leading inspector in to error regarding impact of proposed development.
Although the planning inspector had made a factual error in stating in his decision letter that it appeared from his sight visit that part of one of the neighbouring properties immediately behind the boundary wall with the claimants' property was a patio, whereas it was in fact a flat roofed building, it was held that that error did not affect his overall conclusions that the claimant's neighbours would be affected to an undesirable degree by the proposed 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