Halliday and Few v SoS Transport
Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; (1991) 31 RVR 40-44(5)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: LT 28 March 1990. The claimants, H, were owners of a long leasehold interest in a ground floor flat and garden . Within the garden was a prefabricated garage . The line of a new dual carriageway was fixed in 1986 and the compulsory purchase order included the site of the garage. In April 1989 H served a blight notice in respect of the whole property. In June 1989 the SoS appealed on the grounds that only part of the property was to be acquired. H claimed that Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s202 required LT to consider whether "in the cases of a park, or garden belonging to a house, the part proposed to be acquired can be taken without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the house" and regard not only the consequence of actually taking the land but also its significant use. LT held that the blight notice was valid on the grounds that the part included in the order could not be taken without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the house.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS44236 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 46023-1001 |
LT 28 March 1990. The claimants, H, were owners of a long leasehold interest in a ground floor flat and garden . Within the garden was a prefabricated garage . The line of a new dual carriageway was fixed in 1986 and the compulsory purchase order included the site of the garage. In April 1989 H served a blight notice in respect of the whole property. In June 1989 the SoS appealed on the grounds that only part of the property was to be acquired. H claimed that Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s202 required LT to consider whether "in the cases of a park, or garden belonging to a house, the part proposed to be acquired can be taken without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the house" and regard not only the consequence of actually taking the land but also its significant use. LT held that the blight notice was valid on the grounds that the part included in the order could not be taken without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the house.