The developer made it clear in his application that only a development on the large scale envisaged would be satisfactory. The Inspector refused the application, and he appealed saying the Inspector had not said what size of development would have been acceptable.
Held: The Inspector was not obliged to specify what alternate scheme might be acceptable. He suffered no prejudice by the failure since he had put his case on the basis that only a large scheme was acceptable.
Judges:
Brroke, Kay, Dyson LLJ
Citations:
Times 12-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1737
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd HL 28-Feb-1991
An order allowing demolition of a listed building was possible even though the building itself remained viable. The function of the courts was to validate the decision making process, not the merits of the decision.
Lord Bridge analysed the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.178427