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| 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