Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Andrew Sharland (instructed by Thomas Eggar , Crawley) for the Claimant Robert Walton (instructed by Legal Department, Mid-Sussex DC) for the Defendant The Interested party did not appear and was not represented Hearing dates: 19th May 2016 ____________________
Map 5 shows this site in the foreground of View 10 from the area near the church. Having seen the photographs, it is obvious (and Mr Walton did not seek to argue otherwise) that the views across it from the north are of an open grassed area leading on to the view of the countryside beyond. Those views have policy protection under Policy CNP 5, to which I shall make reference below.
Accordingly, the Proposal Map was modified to show the built-up area boundary to run along the western boundary of 'Newbury'.
e. Policy C1 applies to development proposals on land outside the built up area boundary, which this site is. It states
(Headings (a) to (g) consist of excepted types of development which do not include the development of a house as proposed in this application). I shall refer to its policies on housing in due course.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.