Image from Google Jackets

ADP & E Farmers v Department of Transport

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8818) 7 May 1988 80-84Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: LT (REF/201/1984) 3 February 1988. A reference to determine the amount of compensation payable on the acquisition of land for the formation of a spur road to the M5 motorway. Briefly, 0.555 ac of land fronting on to the then Exeter bypass was acquired. This land formed part of 19.28 ac with possibilities for housing development. The claimants` figure for compensation was £750,079 on the assumption that after the acquisition of the 0.555 ac there was no prospect of the retained land being developed and its value did not exceed agricultural value. An alternative claim of £726,647 was sought if the Bwllfa principle was not applicable. The acquiring authority`s figure was £98,010, based on the assumption that alternative means of access were available to the retained land so that it could be developed. Planning permission for residential development had been refused in 1962, 67 and 76; a certificate of appropriate alternative development for the land taken was issued by the Secretary of
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39180 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 14857-1001

LT (REF/201/1984) 3 February 1988. A reference to determine the amount of compensation payable on the acquisition of land for the formation of a spur road to the M5 motorway. Briefly, 0.555 ac of land fronting on to the then Exeter bypass was acquired. This land formed part of 19.28 ac with possibilities for housing development. The claimants` figure for compensation was £750,079 on the assumption that after the acquisition of the 0.555 ac there was no prospect of the retained land being developed and its value did not exceed agricultural value. An alternative claim of £726,647 was sought if the Bwllfa principle was not applicable. The acquiring authority`s figure was £98,010, based on the assumption that alternative means of access were available to the retained land so that it could be developed. Planning permission for residential development had been refused in 1962, 67 and 76; a certificate of appropriate alternative development for the land taken was issued by the Secretary of