New directions in compulsory purchase

Journal of Planning and Environment Law

Volumn , Issue FEB., 2006, Pages 133-146

  Clayton, Richard ^a,b  

^a Barrister

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN RIGHTS; PARTNERSHIP APPROACH; PLANNING PRACTICE;

EID: 33244454461     PISSN: 03074870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Barrister, 39 Essex Street, Visiting Fellow, Centre for Public Law, University of Cambridge. This paper was originally given to a LGG seminar. I am grateful for the comments from my colleagues at 39 Essex Street (particularly, Richard Harwood, John Pugh Smith and Martin Edwards) and from Paul Winter. The responsibility for any errors or omissions is mine.
2. Law Comm No.286.
3. [1992] 2 P.L.R. 11.
4. See NASS v Westminster CC [2002] 1 W.L.R. 2956 per Lord Steyn at para.2959.
5. Para.15.
6. Ch.1, para.5.
7. Ch.1, para.6.
8. ibid.
9. Ch.1, para.7.
10. Ch.1, para.10.
11. Para.52
12. [2004] B.L.G.R. 257.
13. Section 21(1A) of the National Assistance Act 1948 prevents the provision of residential accommodation to those subject to immigration control whose need for care and attention arises solely from destitution.
14. Above, Dyson L.J. at para.30.
15. (2003) L.G.R. 423.
16. [1970] A.C. 874.
17. [2005] EWHC 18 (Admin).
18. [2002] EWHC 2044 (Admin).
19. [2003) 2 A.C. 295.
20. [2004] 1 W.L.R. 2557.
21. See South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter [2003] 2 A.C. 558.
22. [2004] 1 A.C. 983.
23. Subsequently, the European Court of Human Rights reached a decision in Conners v United Kingdom (2004) 40 E.H.R.R. 189 which is irreconcilable with Qazi.
24. The Court of Appeal in Price v Leeds CC [2005] 1 W.L.R. 1825 nonetheless followed Qazi and not Connors, but granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Although argument in Price will be heard by the House of Lords in December 2005, the Lords are unlikely to revisit its analysis of the relationship between Art.8 and Art.1 of the First Protocol.
25. See R. (on the Application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 A.C. 532;
26. R. (on the Application of Samaroo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001) U.K.H.R.R. 1622.
27. Cited above, at para.49;
28. see also Keene L.J. at para.55.
29. (2001) 22 H.L.R. 58.
30. [2003] EWHC Admin 2511; contrast the more flexible approach taken by Sullivan J. in the pre-HRA case, Tesco Stores v Secretary of State for the Environment (2000) 80 P & C.P. 427 at para.229 approved by Harrison J. in Bexley LBC v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] EWHC 323 Admin [46].
31. [2005] 1 W.L.R. 2229.
32. [1947] A.C. 565; recently applied by the House of Lords in Waters v Welsh Development Agency [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1304.
33. TWA/03/APP/05; APP/X5210/N/03/1121807; APP/X5210/A/03/1121801; APP/X5210/ A/04/137590.
34. See Wade & Forsyth Administrative Law (8th ed. 2000) pp.356-7, approved by Lord Bingham in [2002] A.C. 357 at [19].
35. [1968] A.C. 997.
36. [1987] J.P.L. 797.
37. In which the relevant link phrase is "incidental to".
38. [1992] 2 A.C. 1 at [31].
39. [1992] 2 A.C. 4.
40. (1982) 81 L.G.R. 193 (CA).
41. [2000] 2 A.C. 115, 131.
42. [1925] A.C. 338.
43. The notice must state: (a) the main features of the scheme; (b) that the landlord proposes to apply to the Secretary of State for approval of the scheme; and (c) the effect of the approval by virtue of s.84 of the 1985 Act (which entitles the authority to seek possession) and ground 10A (which enables possession to be granted if suitable alternative accommodation is available).
44. (1999) 31 H.L.R. 794.