R v Bromley LBC ex parte Frampton Securities Ltd
R v Bromley LBC ex parte Frampton Securities Ltd
- 1992
- Rating & Valuation Reporter (1992) 32 RVR 173-175(3) .
CA 12 February 1992. The applicants F owned a site, with planning permission to build offices, which they wished to retain and develop. The council wished to purchase the site to build a new magistrates court. F contended that other sites were more suitable. In April 1989 the council resolved to compulsorily purchase the site. Another site had also been considered which was purchased by the council in January 1991. In March 1991 the Metropolitan Police showed an interest in the second site for a new headquarters for South London. In April 1991 the cpo for F`s site was sealed. F objected. There were various delays to the inquiry but the council agreed not to sell the second site until the inquiry had concluded. However on 8 January 1992 the council decided to sell the second site when the inquiry had not yet been held. The inquiry resumed for three days and F applied for a stay on the sale of the second site until after the hearing. The court held against this on the grounds that the
COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER
MAGISTRATES COURT
CA 12 February 1992. The applicants F owned a site, with planning permission to build offices, which they wished to retain and develop. The council wished to purchase the site to build a new magistrates court. F contended that other sites were more suitable. In April 1989 the council resolved to compulsorily purchase the site. Another site had also been considered which was purchased by the council in January 1991. In March 1991 the Metropolitan Police showed an interest in the second site for a new headquarters for South London. In April 1991 the cpo for F`s site was sealed. F objected. There were various delays to the inquiry but the council agreed not to sell the second site until the inquiry had concluded. However on 8 January 1992 the council decided to sell the second site when the inquiry had not yet been held. The inquiry resumed for three days and F applied for a stay on the sale of the second site until after the hearing. The court held against this on the grounds that the
COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER
MAGISTRATES COURT