Norman and another v DTp
Norman and another v DTp
- 1996
- Estates Gazette [1996] 24 EG 150-155 (6) .
LT 20 February 1996. The owners of a cottage (N) served a blight notice on the respondent authority (X) requiring them to acquire their interest in the property. N claimed that although the draft compulsory purchase order only covered the subsoil of the adjoining highway, the subsoil was part of their hereditament and therefore X had to acquire the whole property. X served a counternotice claiming that the hereditament did not include the highway subsoil. "Decision" X`s objection was not well founded. The subsoil was part of the hereditament. Accordingly, the blight notice was valid and X was required to acquire the cottage and the subsoil.
BLIGHT NOTICE
DRAFT COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER
HEREDITAMENTS
HIGHWAY SUBSOIL
NORMAN AND ANOTHER V DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
NOTICE TO TREAT
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S171(1)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 SCHED 13
LT 20 February 1996. The owners of a cottage (N) served a blight notice on the respondent authority (X) requiring them to acquire their interest in the property. N claimed that although the draft compulsory purchase order only covered the subsoil of the adjoining highway, the subsoil was part of their hereditament and therefore X had to acquire the whole property. X served a counternotice claiming that the hereditament did not include the highway subsoil. "Decision" X`s objection was not well founded. The subsoil was part of the hereditament. Accordingly, the blight notice was valid and X was required to acquire the cottage and the subsoil.
BLIGHT NOTICE
DRAFT COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER
HEREDITAMENTS
HIGHWAY SUBSOIL
NORMAN AND ANOTHER V DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
NOTICE TO TREAT
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S171(1)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 SCHED 13