Is it still good law? ⚠️ This case has negative treatment (1 citation(s): e.g. doubted / not followed / overruled). Check carefully before relying on it.
How to cite
[1991] 1 W.L.R. 153
Neutral citation format (OSCOLA). Always confirm against the official judgment.
“…District Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1953, at paragraph 36, the speech of Lord Bridge of Harwich in Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd. [1991] 1 W.L.R. 153, and the leading judgment in this court in East Quayside 12 LLP v The Council of the City of Newcastle Upon Tyne [2023] EWCA Civ 359, at paragraphs 36, 37, 51 …”
“…lternative submission that the inspector’s reasoning in paragraph 71 was “inadequate in the sense explained in [Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd. [1991] 1 W.L.R. 153 and South Bucks District Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1953]”. The level of harm to the significance of the listed building was a “principal importan…”
“…n substantially prejudiced by the deficiency of the reasons given” (see the speech of Lord Bridge of Harwich in Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd. [1991] 1 W.L.R. 153, at p. 167). It will keep in mind that the decision letter is directed to parties familiar with the evidence and submissions in the case (see the speech of Lor…”
“… to a material consideration which was placed before him then there must usually be (in Lord Bridge’s words [in Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd. [1991] 1 W.L.R. 153, at p.167]) “substantial doubt whether the decision [was taken] within the powers of the Act[”.] Accordingly the interests of an applicant will in that circums…”