Development and restrictive covenants, clarification of section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is it necessary?
Karas, Jonathan
Development and restrictive covenants, clarification of section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is it necessary? - 2008 - Journal of Planning and Environment Law (Issue 1) 2008, 9-17(9) .
Looks at proposed amendments to legislation to allow the use of land to take place notwithstanding that it infringes easements or restrictive covenants. Compensation for 'breaching' rights that restrict the use of land will be based upon the depreciation in the value of the land that has the benefit of the rights. Argues that the simplification of the compensation process is appropriate and should be welcomed and looks at the background behind the changes. Closes by saying that clarification of the law is welcome but unnecessary, with the authors arguing that the decision in Thames Water Utilities v Oxford CC was flawed - leading to the current move towards clarification.
R V LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD EX PARTE BROWN
THAMES WATER UTILITIES LTD V OXFORD CC AND ANOTHER
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S237
FLETCHER V BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION
HAMMERSMITH RAILWAY COMPANY V BRAND
KIRBY V SCHOOL BOARD FOR HARROGATE
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84
LONG EATON RECREATION GROUNDS CO LTD V MIDLAND RAILWAY CO
RE SIMEON AND THE ISLE OF WIGHT RDC
WILDTREE HOTELS LTD AND OTHERS V HARROW LBC
BROWN V HEATHLANDS MENTAL HEALTH NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE TRUST
COWPER ESSEX V ACTON LOCAL BOARD
England and Wales--1543-
Development and restrictive covenants, clarification of section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is it necessary? - 2008 - Journal of Planning and Environment Law (Issue 1) 2008, 9-17(9) .
Looks at proposed amendments to legislation to allow the use of land to take place notwithstanding that it infringes easements or restrictive covenants. Compensation for 'breaching' rights that restrict the use of land will be based upon the depreciation in the value of the land that has the benefit of the rights. Argues that the simplification of the compensation process is appropriate and should be welcomed and looks at the background behind the changes. Closes by saying that clarification of the law is welcome but unnecessary, with the authors arguing that the decision in Thames Water Utilities v Oxford CC was flawed - leading to the current move towards clarification.
R V LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD EX PARTE BROWN
THAMES WATER UTILITIES LTD V OXFORD CC AND ANOTHER
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S237
FLETCHER V BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION
HAMMERSMITH RAILWAY COMPANY V BRAND
KIRBY V SCHOOL BOARD FOR HARROGATE
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84
LONG EATON RECREATION GROUNDS CO LTD V MIDLAND RAILWAY CO
RE SIMEON AND THE ISLE OF WIGHT RDC
WILDTREE HOTELS LTD AND OTHERS V HARROW LBC
BROWN V HEATHLANDS MENTAL HEALTH NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE TRUST
COWPER ESSEX V ACTON LOCAL BOARD
England and Wales--1543-