Robbins v Secretary of State for the Environment and Ashford B C
Language: English Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; May 1988 349-357(9)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: QBD 13 November 1987. An appeal to quash a decision of the SoS Environment where he confirmed a compulsory purchase order made by Ashford B C made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s114 , having first served a notice of repair under s115. The appellant appealed on two grounds, namely that the requirements of s114 had not been complied with and the notice under s115 as a preliminary to compulsory purchase under s114, was void as it exceeded what was permitted under that section. The appellant alleged that the repairs notice was defective as it specified works of restoration in addition to works of preservation, and as a result the CPO was invalid. The judge found that the repairs notice was defective, and on so doing had to decide whether the CPO should be quashed. Relying on the speech by Lord Hailsham in London and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen D C the judge did not quash the CPO; there were a number of requirements for the repair which the appellant had not complied with| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39181 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 14862-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
QBD 13 November 1987. An appeal to quash a decision of the SoS Environment where he confirmed a compulsory purchase order made by Ashford B C made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s114 , having first served a notice of repair under s115. The appellant appealed on two grounds, namely that the requirements of s114 had not been complied with and the notice under s115 as a preliminary to compulsory purchase under s114, was void as it exceeded what was permitted under that section. The appellant alleged that the repairs notice was defective as it specified works of restoration in addition to works of preservation, and as a result the CPO was invalid. The judge found that the repairs notice was defective, and on so doing had to decide whether the CPO should be quashed. Relying on the speech by Lord Hailsham in London and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen D C the judge did not quash the CPO; there were a number of requirements for the repair which the appellant had not complied with