Smith and Smith v Kent CC
Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; (1996) 36 RVR 35-41(7)Publication details: 1996Subject(s): Summary: LT 10 February 1995. K proposed a road improvement scheme that would reduce the boundary of S`s front garden, as well as temporarily requiring a further 3m of working space. S served a blight notice on K after reasonable endeavors to sell the house failed. K served a counter notice, claiming it proposed to buy only part of the hereditament. S referred K`s notice to the LT for determination as to whether it was well founded under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s166. "Held" counter notice not well founded and blight notice upheld; part of the garden could not be taken without seriously affecting amenity of the house.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS54525 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 10963-1001 |
LT 10 February 1995. K proposed a road improvement scheme that would reduce the boundary of S`s front garden, as well as temporarily requiring a further 3m of working space. S served a blight notice on K after reasonable endeavors to sell the house failed. K served a counter notice, claiming it proposed to buy only part of the hereditament. S referred K`s notice to the LT for determination as to whether it was well founded under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s166. "Held" counter notice not well founded and blight notice upheld; part of the garden could not be taken without seriously affecting amenity of the house.