R v SoS Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co
R v SoS Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co
- 1990
- Property and Compensation Reports (1990) 59 PCR 257-274(18) .
QBD 17 July 1989 Application for judicial review to quash an SoS decision not to schedule the remains of the Rose Theatre as a monument of national importance under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 . The Trust Co contended that the SoS had taken irrelevant considerations into account, including issues on the liability to pay compensation and preservation v development of the site. The SoS contended he had not acted unlawfully and the owners and developers of the site submitted that the applicant did not have standing to make the application. QBD held that a decision to schedule a site as a monument of national importance was a decision to which an ordinary citizen did not have sufficient interest to entitle him to apply for judicial review; therefore, a body of people created by individuals had no standing either. The SoS was entitled to use his discretion to take into account a number of points which included risk of liability to pay compensation and the compe
ARCHAEOLOGY
CONSERVATION
DEVELOPMENT
QBD 17 July 1989 Application for judicial review to quash an SoS decision not to schedule the remains of the Rose Theatre as a monument of national importance under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 . The Trust Co contended that the SoS had taken irrelevant considerations into account, including issues on the liability to pay compensation and preservation v development of the site. The SoS contended he had not acted unlawfully and the owners and developers of the site submitted that the applicant did not have standing to make the application. QBD held that a decision to schedule a site as a monument of national importance was a decision to which an ordinary citizen did not have sufficient interest to entitle him to apply for judicial review; therefore, a body of people created by individuals had no standing either. The SoS was entitled to use his discretion to take into account a number of points which included risk of liability to pay compensation and the compe
ARCHAEOLOGY
CONSERVATION
DEVELOPMENT