The application of the House of Lords’ ruling in Alconbury that the exercise of the section 77 call in power was not after all incompatible with article 6, it was unsuccessfully argued instead that a refusal to call in a planning application under section 77 would necessarily be incompatible with article 6.
Held: The obligation to call in a planning application to ensure compliance with article 6 would only arise in some cases, for example where there were significant issues of fact to be decided and because, therefore, the discretion remained largely intact, section 6 (2) (b) did not apply.
Forbes J
[2001] EWHC Admin 820, [2002] 1 WLR 1450
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Nunn, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and others CA 8-Feb-2005
The operator sought permission to erect a mobile phone mast. The authority failed to serve notice of the decision to refuse prior approval. The applicant wished to object.
Held: The applicant had been deprived of her right to make objection to . .
Cited – Hooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Human Rights
Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.167251