Currie`s Exors v SoS for Scotland
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1993) 32 EG 82-84(4)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: LT for Scotland 18 March 1992. The SoS for Scotland scheduled an area of land under Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 s1. The owner had intended to turn part of the farm this land was on over to afforestation. The owners applied for scheduled monument consent in respect of the ploughing of land and planting of trees. This was refused. The owners claimed compensation under s7 of the Act based upon the open market value of the land with and without consent. It was held that Parliament intended that compensation should be payable only for loss or damage incurred as a result of refusal of scheduled monument consent calculated at the date of the refusal. It was unfortunate that at this time the value of forestry land had fallen considerably due to measures in the 1988 budget. It is likely that the plan for afforestation of the land would not have proceeded if schedule monument status had been granted therefore there was no difference between the value of the land in its| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS49150 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 70190-1001 |
LT for Scotland 18 March 1992. The SoS for Scotland scheduled an area of land under Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 s1. The owner had intended to turn part of the farm this land was on over to afforestation. The owners applied for scheduled monument consent in respect of the ploughing of land and planting of trees. This was refused. The owners claimed compensation under s7 of the Act based upon the open market value of the land with and without consent. It was held that Parliament intended that compensation should be payable only for loss or damage incurred as a result of refusal of scheduled monument consent calculated at the date of the refusal. It was unfortunate that at this time the value of forestry land had fallen considerably due to measures in the 1988 budget. It is likely that the plan for afforestation of the land would not have proceeded if schedule monument status had been granted therefore there was no difference between the value of the land in its