header-logo header-logo

26 June 2017
Issue: 7750 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Planning

R (on the application of Hayes) v City of York Council [2017] EWHC 1374 (Admin), [2017] All ER (D) 53 (Jun)

The Planning Court dismissed the claimant’s application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority’s grant of planning permission for new features at the historic Clifford’s Tower.

In the first case raising directly the meaning and effect of para 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework, it held that the last sentence of that paragraph only made good sense if interpreted so that the words the ability to recover evidence ‘should not be a factor’ in deciding were taken mean ‘should not be a decisive factor’ in deciding whether the harm to the asset should be permitted.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
The controversial Mazur ruling, which caused widespread uncertainty about the role of non-solicitors in litigation work, has been overturned on appeal
Two landmark social media cases in the US could influence social media regulation in the UK, lawyers predict
Barristers have urged the government to set up Nightingale-style specialist courts, with jury trials, to prioritise rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse trials
Victims of violent crimes who suffer life-changing injuries receive less than half the financial support today than those in the 1990s, according to a senior personal injury lawyer
Rising numbers of cases, an increase in litigants in person and an overall lack of investment is piling pressure on the family court, the Law Society has warned
back-to-top-scroll