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.
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR GOATLEY (with MR MCLEISH for the judgment) (instructed by Hewitsons) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT MR KOLINSKY (with MR BARCLAY for the judgment) (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the FIRST DEFENDANT The SECOND DEFENDANT did not appear and was not represented ____________________
"Resolved: That the Planning Inspectorate and the appellants be advised as follows:-
"(i) That, had the Local Planning Authority had the opportunity to determine the appealed application, it would have refused the proposals for the following reasons:
"(01) The proposal would result in the development of land which is identified on the Proposals Map of the Adopted Borough of Luton Local Plan as allotments without consideration having been given to replacement facilities in an appropriate location which is as accessible to the public. It is, therefore, contrary to Policy OS5 'Allotments' of the Borough of Luton Local Plan.
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.