Charman v Dorset County Council
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1086) 52 PCR 88-98(11)Subject(s): Summary: LT (REF 116/1984) 26 January 1986. Reference to determine whether a counter-notice served by the council in response to a blight notice served by the claimant was well founded. A service road was due to be constructed through the claimant`s front garden according to a local plan adopted by the council in 1983. The council served a counter- notice on the grounds that it did not intend to acquire any part of the claimant`s hereditament unless compelled to do so. It relied on resolutions in 20 March 1984 (the date the counter-notice was served) and 19 March 1985, which excluded the area in which the claimant lived from the land occupied by the service road. The claimant relied on resolutions adopted by the committees of the borough council that the proposed service road was still active policy. In deciding the validity of the counter-notice the LT had first to decide the proper date to be taken as a relevant date for an examination of the claim. It decided that the relevant date was the| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS36960 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 1246-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
LT (REF 116/1984) 26 January 1986. Reference to determine whether a counter-notice served by the council in response to a blight notice served by the claimant was well founded. A service road was due to be constructed through the claimant`s front garden according to a local plan adopted by the council in 1983. The council served a counter- notice on the grounds that it did not intend to acquire any part of the claimant`s hereditament unless compelled to do so. It relied on resolutions in 20 March 1984 (the date the counter-notice was served) and 19 March 1985, which excluded the area in which the claimant lived from the land occupied by the service road. The claimant relied on resolutions adopted by the committees of the borough council that the proposed service road was still active policy. In deciding the validity of the counter-notice the LT had first to decide the proper date to be taken as a relevant date for an examination of the claim. It decided that the relevant date was the