Image from Google Jackets

Times Investment Ltd v SoS Environment and Tower Hamlets LBC

Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1991) 61 PCR 98-102(3)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: CA 12 June 1990. The respondents, T, to this appeal by the London borough were successors in title to premises in the borough which had been granted planning permission for alterations and change of use to B1 . Permission was subject to conditions including retention of five separate units in each building. T`s predecessors in title appealed against that condition. It was dealt with by way of written representations. It was allowed with the condition being substituted for one which required that "the building shall not be used, occupied or otherwise let than as separate units of not more than 200 sq m gross floor area". By the time the decision letter was issued T had acquired the premises. They applied successfully to HC to quash the decision. The SoS had accepted, before any hearing at first instance, that the decision letter was defective and ought to be quashed. The borough appealed to CA. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that as T had acquired the property and as any cond
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS44149 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 45549-1001

CA 12 June 1990. The respondents, T, to this appeal by the London borough were successors in title to premises in the borough which had been granted planning permission for alterations and change of use to B1 . Permission was subject to conditions including retention of five separate units in each building. T`s predecessors in title appealed against that condition. It was dealt with by way of written representations. It was allowed with the condition being substituted for one which required that "the building shall not be used, occupied or otherwise let than as separate units of not more than 200 sq m gross floor area". By the time the decision letter was issued T had acquired the premises. They applied successfully to HC to quash the decision. The SoS had accepted, before any hearing at first instance, that the decision letter was defective and ought to be quashed. The borough appealed to CA. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that as T had acquired the property and as any cond