Demolition in UK Law
Fairmount Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment
...... At the inquiry the appellants put forward two contentions, first that the houses were not unfit, and, secondly, that if they were, their demolition was not the best way of dealing with the conditions in the area as they were capable of rehabilitation. They put forward proposals for that directed ......
- Re Stalybridge and Compulsory Purchase Order, 1963; Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government
Almond v Ash Brothers & Heaton Ltd ; Dawkins (Valuation Officer) v Ash Bros & Heaton Ltd
......It is, shortly stated, whether the prospect of an early demolition of premises by a local authority is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration in assessing the rateable value of the property. . ......
Hillingdon London Borough Council v Cutler
...... the subject of appeal) in which the local authority sued the defendant in the County Court for certain expenses arising (they said) under demolition orders which they had made against buildings on property of the defendant's. This property appears to have been a considerable 18th-century house ......
Elliott v Southwark London Borough Council
...... background to the appeal is the introduction by legislation in 1974 of the concept of the rehabilitation of houses as an alternative to demolition, clearance and redevelopment. The relevant statutory provisions are the Housing Act, 1974, section 114, and the 10th Schedule to that Act as amended ......
- R v Bristol Corpn.ex parte Hendy
Davy v Leeds Corporation
...... 14 The Lands Tribunal accepted the contention advanced by Mr. Bridge that this section was irrelevant since, they said, "'demolition' which is all that a clearance area declaration requires, is not 'development' for the purposes of the Act", Mr. Layfield, for the Respondents, had ......
Davy v Leeds Corporation
......But they were under a serious misapprehension which vitiates much of their reasoning. They thought that demolition was not "development" for the purposes of Section 9 of the Act, whereas it is so. That appears from the last two lines of sub-section (8). The ......
Canterbury City Council v Colley and Another
...... outline planning permission had been granted on 15 November 1961 by the Kent County Council, then the local planning authority, for "the demolition of house and erection of new dwelling". Following that permission, the house originally standing on the property was demolished in September 1963 but ......
Smith v Giuliani
...... cited, but as it appeared that the menace to the public safety would be remove, if part only of the building was taken away, the order for demolition was confined to that part alone. The question is whether in these circumstances the word "proprietor" applies only to the proprietors of that part of ......
See all results