McCabe and others v SOS Communities and Local Government [electronic resource]
McCabe and others v SOS Communities and Local Government [electronic resource]
- 2007
[2007] EWHC 959 (Admin), 4 April 2007. Considers whether under-used urban land as described by the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s159(2)(b), which was subject to compulsory acquisition for regeneration, had to be visited by an inspector to determine whether each part of the land fell within this section of the Act. The applicant retail tenants (M) challenged the compulsory purchase order brought by English Partnerships. M argued that Pascoe v First SOS ([2006] EWHC 2356 (Admin)) showed that land could not be taken if it did not fall entirely within one of the statutory descriptions for compulsory acquisition. These were 'under-use' and 'inefficient use'. "Held": The inspector was not required to determine which statutory definitions each part of the land was subject to. She had accepted that the land could be taken as a whole, as each part could not be redeveloped separately. The impression of neglect was some evidence of under-use or ineffective use. The inspector was entitled to this finding. Despite referring to some parts of land as being vacant, the Secretary of State was entitled to accept the inspector's decision. Application refused.
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S159(2)(B)
PASCOE V FIRST SOS AND OTHERS
England and Wales--1543-
[2007] EWHC 959 (Admin), 4 April 2007. Considers whether under-used urban land as described by the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s159(2)(b), which was subject to compulsory acquisition for regeneration, had to be visited by an inspector to determine whether each part of the land fell within this section of the Act. The applicant retail tenants (M) challenged the compulsory purchase order brought by English Partnerships. M argued that Pascoe v First SOS ([2006] EWHC 2356 (Admin)) showed that land could not be taken if it did not fall entirely within one of the statutory descriptions for compulsory acquisition. These were 'under-use' and 'inefficient use'. "Held": The inspector was not required to determine which statutory definitions each part of the land was subject to. She had accepted that the land could be taken as a whole, as each part could not be redeveloped separately. The impression of neglect was some evidence of under-use or ineffective use. The inspector was entitled to this finding. Despite referring to some parts of land as being vacant, the Secretary of State was entitled to accept the inspector's decision. Application refused.
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S159(2)(B)
PASCOE V FIRST SOS AND OTHERS
England and Wales--1543-