首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Planning & Environment Law >Paul and Gillian Marshall v Mr Kevin Jones and Mrs Joanna Jones
【24h】

Paul and Gillian Marshall v Mr Kevin Jones and Mrs Joanna Jones

机译:保罗和吉利安·马歇尔诉凯文·琼斯先生和乔安娜·琼斯夫人

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The application is argued under grounds (aa), (b) and (c) although, for the reasons given above (b) must fail, and I do not therefore deal with it further here. There are six questions that arise for determination under s.84(l)(aa) (see Bass' Application, Re (1973) 26 P. & C.R. 156): whether the restriction impedes some reasonable user of the land; if so, whether in so doing it secures to the objector any practical benefits; if so, whether those practical benefits are of substantial value or advantage to it; and, if not, whether money would be adequate compensation for any loss or disadvantage suffered; whether, if ground (aa) has been made out, I should exercise my discretion in favour of the modification; and, if so, how much if anything should I award as compensation.
机译:该申请是根据(aa),(b)和(c)的理由提出的,尽管由于上述原因(b)必须失败,因此在此我不做进一步处理。根据第84(l)(aa)条的规定,有六个问题需要确定(请参阅Bass的申请书,Re(1973)26 P.&C.R. 156):限制是否阻碍了土地的合理使用?如果是,这样做是否确保反对者或任何实际利益;如果是,这些实际利益是否具有实质性价值或优势;如果不是,金钱是否足以弥补遭受的任何损失或不利条件;是否已提出理由(aa),我是否应行使自己的酌处权赞成该修改;如果可以,我应该赔偿多少(如果有的话)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号