Maidstone BC v SoS Environment & another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1996) 06 EG 142-147(6)Publication details: 1996Subject(s): Summary: CA 7 July 1995. M owned land required for a road scheme. In 1990 Kent CC (the second respondent) applied to M for a certificate of appropriate alternative development. M issued a certificate that planning permission for offices, residential development, hotel and/or car parking would be granted. S cancelled this certificate, stating that planning permission would be granted for car parking and road construction if the land were not proposed to be acquired. M`s appeal to quash S`s ruling under Land Compensation Act 1961 s5, contending that they were a willing seller and that the land had to be acquired by an authority with compulsory purchase powers, was rejected by the court below. Appeal dismissed. S5 has nothing to do with assumptions as to planning permission.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS54524 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 10960-1001 |
CA 7 July 1995. M owned land required for a road scheme. In 1990 Kent CC (the second respondent) applied to M for a certificate of appropriate alternative development. M issued a certificate that planning permission for offices, residential development, hotel and/or car parking would be granted. S cancelled this certificate, stating that planning permission would be granted for car parking and road construction if the land were not proposed to be acquired. M`s appeal to quash S`s ruling under Land Compensation Act 1961 s5, contending that they were a willing seller and that the land had to be acquired by an authority with compulsory purchase powers, was rejected by the court below. Appeal dismissed. S5 has nothing to do with assumptions as to planning permission.