000			01640cab a2200205 4500
001			ABS39312
008			090401t1988 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u15881
041			_aeng
245			_aBell v Canterbury City Council
260			_c1988
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(8822) 4 June 1988, 86-94(4)
520			_aCA 10 March 1988. Appeal by local authority (C) from LT decision awarding compensation to the landowner (B) for diminution of value of his land following a refusal of planning permission to fell trees on part of woodland subject to a Tree Preservation Order . At issue was the correct basis of compensation. LT held that the current capital value of the land in its present state was £450 per acre; if reclamation for grazing land had been permitted the value would be £1,900 per acre and upheld B`s contention that compensation should be based on diminution in value of land, not restricted to loss caused by inability to fell timber, as provided by Article 9 of the Order. C contended that compensation was limited to the commercial value of the timber, which B could not realise because of the refusal of permission and so the actual amount would be nil after making appropriate deductions for acquisition and sale. C relied on Article 6 of the Order which provided that ... C were required to g
650			_aASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL PICTURE HOUSES LTD V WEDNESBURY CORPORATION
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1971 S60
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT-COMPULSORY PURCHASE AND COMPENSATION
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c10455 _d10455