Lough and others v First SoS
Series: Weekly Law Reports ; [2004] 1 WLR 2557-2576(20)Publication details: 2004Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2004] EWCA Civ 905, 12 July 2004. L and others (members of an incorporated residents association) appealed against a planning inspector's decision to grant planning permission to a developer wishing to build a 20-storey building with mixed retail and restaurants on ground floor. The local authority had initially refused planning permission on the basis of loss of amenity to adjacent area and residents. This had been overturned by the planning inspector. L and others' appeal to the HC, to quash the planning permission on the grounds that the proposed development breached residents' rights of respect for their private and family life and homes under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 8 and their rights to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under the First Protocol Art 1, was refused. "Held" that the inspector had struck a balance between the requirements of Art 8 and a landowner's right to make use ofhis land. Inspector's decision upheld. CA dismissed appeal.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS68368 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 127787-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
[2004] EWCA Civ 905, 12 July 2004. L and others (members of an incorporated residents association) appealed against a planning inspector's decision to grant planning permission to a developer wishing to build a 20-storey building with mixed retail and restaurants on ground floor. The local authority had initially refused planning permission on the basis of loss of amenity to adjacent area and residents. This had been overturned by the planning inspector. L and others' appeal to the HC, to quash the planning permission on the grounds that the proposed development breached residents' rights of respect for their private and family life and homes under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 8 and their rights to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under the First Protocol Art 1, was refused. "Held" that the inspector had struck a balance between the requirements of Art 8 and a landowner's right to make use ofhis land. Inspector's decision upheld. CA dismissed appeal.