Where unchallenged evidence establishes that a planning scheme is not the Council's most recent statement of position about appropriate development of a particular site — for example, because the scheme-making process was constrained and could not accommodate a development the Council supports — the scheme cannot be accepted as an expression of the public interest for that site, and the requirement from King of Gifts that need be assessed as need at a location where the scheme provides development should not occur is satisfied. Sections 326(1)(b) and 329(1)(b) of the SPA, though identically worded, are rules for the exercise of different powers with different consequences, and care must be taken in applying s 326 authorities to s 329 cases.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.