Image from Google Jackets

C & J Seymour (Investments) Limited v Lewes DC

Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; (1992) 31 RVR 250-255(6)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: LT 22 July 1991. In June 1987 the council (L) published a draft local plan which identified a town centre site as an extension to a car park. This was adopted in April 1990. In September 1988 the claimant, C`s predecessor in title served a blight notice under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s192 to which L did not object. A deemed notice to treat therefore came into existence on 14 November 1988. On 31 May 1989 application was made for a certificate of appropriate alternative development under Land Compensation Act 1961 s17. In September L issued a certificate for residential development. At the date of the hearing L had not entered onto the land. In 1987 and 1988 consent for a residential development requested by C had been refused on the grounds that the land was earmarked for a car park and would damage a neighbouring conservation area. C sought compensation of £190,000 for the freehold interest with vacant possession. L`s figure was £26,000. The argument arose as to the valuat
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS45869 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 55605-1001

LT 22 July 1991. In June 1987 the council (L) published a draft local plan which identified a town centre site as an extension to a car park. This was adopted in April 1990. In September 1988 the claimant, C`s predecessor in title served a blight notice under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s192 to which L did not object. A deemed notice to treat therefore came into existence on 14 November 1988. On 31 May 1989 application was made for a certificate of appropriate alternative development under Land Compensation Act 1961 s17. In September L issued a certificate for residential development. At the date of the hearing L had not entered onto the land. In 1987 and 1988 consent for a residential development requested by C had been refused on the grounds that the land was earmarked for a car park and would damage a neighbouring conservation area. C sought compensation of £190,000 for the freehold interest with vacant possession. L`s figure was £26,000. The argument arose as to the valuat