<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
	<rss version="2.0">
		<channel>
			<title>Green Building Forum - Planning Inspectorate decisions</title>
			<lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 09:30:20 +0100</lastBuildDate>
			<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/</link>
			<description></description>
			<generator>Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3</generator>
			<item>
		<title>Planning Inspectorate decisions</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219581#Comment_219581</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219581#Comment_219581</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2015 14:47:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>owlman</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Does anyone know if, under the auspices of F.O.I. you can get access to the background and reasons of why a planning inspector arrived at a particular decision.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Planning Inspectorate decisions</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219584#Comment_219584</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219584#Comment_219584</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2015 15:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>PeterStarck</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[I can't help with that I'm afraid, but the Planning Inspectorate Officer gave me very clear reasons why he didn't agree with my appeal.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Planning Inspectorate decisions</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219587#Comment_219587</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219587#Comment_219587</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2015 16:47:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>nigel</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[do you mean more than is provided in the decision notice, the ones I have read have given clear reasoning and background information.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Planning Inspectorate decisions</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219588#Comment_219588</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219588#Comment_219588</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2015 17:35:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>owlman</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[It's all a bit sensitive at the moment Peter and Nigel, and I'm reluctant to give specifics on an open forum. <br />In a nutshell I've looked at at the planning legislation plus amendments, in this very narrow area and I feel that the planning inspectorate have given the wrong advice to the County council, who have, ( not unsurprisingly), in turn used that advice as justification for a particular course of action.<br />So nothing to do with appeals etc..]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Planning Inspectorate decisions</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219686#Comment_219686</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219686#Comment_219686</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2015 08:14:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>Triassic</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Have you point out the error to those involved and if so, what was there response?]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Planning Inspectorate decisions</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219692#Comment_219692</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219692#Comment_219692</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:08:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>owlman</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[I'm onto that at the moment Steve, trying to get access to the docs to see exactly what was written and how it's been interpreted. There may be ambiguity/leeway in what the inspector wrote in which case I need to push the council into explaining why they erred one way instead of another.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Planning Inspectorate decisions</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219726#Comment_219726</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219726#Comment_219726</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:43:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>CWatters</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[<blockquote ><cite >Posted By: owlman</cite>It's all a bit sensitive at the moment Peter and Nigel, and I'm reluctant to give specifics on an open forum.<br />In a nutshell I've looked at at the planning legislation plus amendments, in this very narrow area and I feel that the planning inspectorate have given the wrong advice to the County council, who have, ( not unsurprisingly), in turn used that advice as justification for a particular course of action.<br />So nothing to do with appeals etc..</blockquote><br /><br />I think in that case you would have to appeal the council decision, wait for the planning inspectorate to reject the appeal and then challenge the decision at the high court (within 6 weeks). The high court has the power to change or set aside the planning inspectors decision. <br /><br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/9918022/Conservationists-win-landmark-High-Court-victory-against-wind-farm.html<br /><br />Quote:<br /><br />A judge ruled that a planning inspector made a â€œflawedâ€ decision to give the go-ahead to plans for four 415ft turbines on farmland just a mile from Lyveden New Bield, a Grade I listed National Trust property.....<br /><br />...Mrs Justice Lang ruled at the High Court in London today that the decision to give the go-ahead for the wind farm was legally flawed and must be quashed, meaning that the proposal will have to be reconsidered. <br /><br />She found that the planning inspector failed "properly to interpret and applyâ€ the relevant policies on the effect of development on the setting of heritage sites.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Planning Inspectorate decisions</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219740#Comment_219740</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219740#Comment_219740</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2015 22:38:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>ted</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[<a href="https://www.justice.gov.uk/information-access-rights/foi-guidance-for-practitioners/working-assumptions/foi-assumptions-planning" target="_self" rel="nofollow">https://www.justice.gov.uk/information-access-rights/foi-guidance-for-practitioners/working-assumptions/foi-assumptions-planning</a>]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Planning Inspectorate decisions</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219778#Comment_219778</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13117&amp;Focus=219778#Comment_219778</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:16:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>owlman</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Thanks for the links guys. The situation is not dissimilar from the example you cite, but not turbines.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	
		</channel>
	</rss>