Image from Google Jackets

R v Thurrock BC ex parte Blue Circle Industries plc

Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1995) 65 PCR 79-86(8)Publication details: 1995Subject(s): Summary: CA 16 September 1994. In 1981-1982 B sought planning permission for winning and working of clay and for refilling and reinstatement of the site. The borough council (T) implied to the county council that they would object to any method of infilling except a process called high-density baling. On the basis of this planning permission was granted in 1983. This had no specific reference to high-density baling but required any refuse to be compacted by means previously agreed with the minerals planning authority. In 1991 B sought to be released from this requirement. T refused to agree unless money was paid over by the applicant. B sought judicial review of that decision which was allowed. T`s appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the issue between the parties was whether agreement and variation sought by B would amount to a disposal of land under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, if so there was an obligation on T to require the best consideration which could reasonably be obtained
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS52353 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 74398-1001

CA 16 September 1994. In 1981-1982 B sought planning permission for winning and working of clay and for refilling and reinstatement of the site. The borough council (T) implied to the county council that they would object to any method of infilling except a process called high-density baling. On the basis of this planning permission was granted in 1983. This had no specific reference to high-density baling but required any refuse to be compacted by means previously agreed with the minerals planning authority. In 1991 B sought to be released from this requirement. T refused to agree unless money was paid over by the applicant. B sought judicial review of that decision which was allowed. T`s appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the issue between the parties was whether agreement and variation sought by B would amount to a disposal of land under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, if so there was an obligation on T to require the best consideration which could reasonably be obtained