Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Local authority failed to give adequate reasons for building of planned road and for the chosen route
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court grants relief to applicant who challenged the validity of the adoption by a local authority of an indicative road route in the county development plan that is intended to run through the applicant's lands, the court finding that: (1) the reasons being given by the council for the road being built were not adequate; (2) the reason for the road being built is erroneous as it states that the road is an objective of the plan; (3) if the council's reasoning for building the road had been adequately reasoned, there would have been no illegality; (4) there has been no adequate reasons given by the council for the route chosen; and (5) the erroneous reasons and lack of reasons has the consequence that there was an interference with the applicants' right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions pursuant to the European Convention on Human Rights.
High Court - commercial - road route identified in the county development plan that would pass through the applicants' lands - applicant given leave to challenge the route of the road as the council failed to adequately identify the necessity for the road and the reasoning for the route chosen - relief granted.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
