Development and restrictive covenants, clarification of section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is it necessary?
Language: English Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; (Issue 1) 2008, 9-17(9)Publication details: 2008Subject(s):- R V LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD EX PARTE BROWN
- THAMES WATER UTILITIES LTD V OXFORD CC AND ANOTHER
- TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S237
- FLETCHER V BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION
- HAMMERSMITH RAILWAY COMPANY V BRAND
- KIRBY V SCHOOL BOARD FOR HARROGATE
- LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84
- LONG EATON RECREATION GROUNDS CO LTD V MIDLAND RAILWAY CO
- RE SIMEON AND THE ISLE OF WIGHT RDC
- WILDTREE HOTELS LTD AND OTHERS V HARROW LBC
- BROWN V HEATHLANDS MENTAL HEALTH NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE TRUST
- COWPER ESSEX V ACTON LOCAL BOARD
- England and Wales -- 1543-
- ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT-COMPULSORY PURCHASE AND COMPENSATION
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L144895 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 144895-1001 |
Looks at proposed amendments to legislation to allow the use of land to take place notwithstanding that it infringes easements or restrictive covenants. Compensation for 'breaching' rights that restrict the use of land will be based upon the depreciation in the value of the land that has the benefit of the rights. Argues that the simplification of the compensation process is appropriate and should be welcomed and looks at the background behind the changes. Closes by saying that clarification of the law is welcome but unnecessary, with the authors arguing that the decision in Thames Water Utilities v Oxford CC was flawed - leading to the current move towards clarification.