Image from Google Jackets

Fox and others v SoS for the Environment & Surrey Heath BC

Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; (1991) 31 RVR 171-180(10)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: QBD 24 May 1991. In August 1982 an application for residential development was made. It was decided that there was a housing land deficiency and the application was allowed. In November 1982 a local plan draft was published requiring open space use of F`s land. In February 1984 an inspector reporting on the plan recommended that this space be elsewhere. However this was not modified when the local plan was adopted in 1985. In September 1986 the council decided to buy F`s land and in March 1987 wrote to F to negotiate the sale under Land Compensation Act 1961 s17. Certification was issued, certifying that planning permission would not be granted for any development other than that proposed by the council, ie recreational use and public open space. F appealed to the SoS. In June 1989 an inspector recommended issue of a new certificate specifying residential development. The SoS rejected the recommendations. It was held that the SoS`s decision should be quashed on the grounds that the a
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS45246 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 51775-1001

QBD 24 May 1991. In August 1982 an application for residential development was made. It was decided that there was a housing land deficiency and the application was allowed. In November 1982 a local plan draft was published requiring open space use of F`s land. In February 1984 an inspector reporting on the plan recommended that this space be elsewhere. However this was not modified when the local plan was adopted in 1985. In September 1986 the council decided to buy F`s land and in March 1987 wrote to F to negotiate the sale under Land Compensation Act 1961 s17. Certification was issued, certifying that planning permission would not be granted for any development other than that proposed by the council, ie recreational use and public open space. F appealed to the SoS. In June 1989 an inspector recommended issue of a new certificate specifying residential development. The SoS rejected the recommendations. It was held that the SoS`s decision should be quashed on the grounds that the a