Kayworth v Highways Agency
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; [1996] 72 P&CR 433-439(4)Publication details: 1996Subject(s): Summary: LT 14 June 1996. The claimants (K) served a blight notice as their property was partly situated within the formal safeguarding corridor for the widening of the A1 to motorway standard. The Highways Agency (HA) served a counter notice on the grounds that they did not intend to acquire any part of the property. K challenged the HA notice, the HA responded by stating that the road widening would now take place on the opposite side of the road and had been so reported in the newspaper. K pointed out that the new route had not been notified to the local authority for search purposes and that two nearby houses had been purchased by the HA. Held, that the agency`s objection in the counter notice was not well founded as it had not informed the local authority formally of its changed intention.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS56079 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 20987-1001 |
LT 14 June 1996. The claimants (K) served a blight notice as their property was partly situated within the formal safeguarding corridor for the widening of the A1 to motorway standard. The Highways Agency (HA) served a counter notice on the grounds that they did not intend to acquire any part of the property. K challenged the HA notice, the HA responded by stating that the road widening would now take place on the opposite side of the road and had been so reported in the newspaper. K pointed out that the new route had not been notified to the local authority for search purposes and that two nearby houses had been purchased by the HA. Held, that the agency`s objection in the counter notice was not well founded as it had not informed the local authority formally of its changed intention.