It was not legitimate for an authority to refuse a planning application because it did not contain provisions for the increase of the proportion of car-parking space subject to public control: the absence of a benefit was not a reason for refusing planning permission where the benefit could not otherwise have been lawfully secured by means of a condition.
There had been evidence at the inquiry although the Inspector did not accept it and formed his own view. It was open to him to use his experience, his professional judgement and his common sense in the matter.
Citations:
(1983) 48 P and CR 255
Cited by:
Cited – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Wolverhampton City Council and Another SC 12-May-2010
The appellant’s land was to be taken under compulsory purchase by the Council who wished to use it to assist Tesco in the construction of a new supermarket. Tesco promised to help fund restoration of a local listed building. Sainsbury objected an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.414944
