Thomas David Head v Eastbourne Borough Council
Decision date: 22 December 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKUT 271 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether Mr Head’s second blight notice for a flat in Eastbourne was valid and whether the council’s counter-notice was well founded. The Tribunal held the notice was substantially compliant despite minor drafting errors, the council’s Supplementary Planning Brief adopted by resolution constituted a “plan” indicating the land may be required, the council failed to show it did not propose to acquire the property as at the relevant date, and the claimant satisfied the marketing/price requirements; the blight notice was allowed and costs awarded to the claimant.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The Tribunal’s ratio includes that minor procedural defects in a prescribed blight-notice form do not invalidate the notice where there is substantial compliance and no prejudice; a supplementary planning brief adopted by resolution can qualify as a “plan” under Schedule 13 para 5 if it indicates land which may be required for relevant public functions; and the material date for assessing the council’s grounds under s151(4)(a) and (b) is at least the date of the counter-notice, so the authority must show at that date it did not propose to acquire the property.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment contains obiter observations that distinctions in statutory wording (e.g. “may be required” versus “allocated/identified”) affect whether private-sector-led schemes give rise to blight, and that market weakness and agents’ reluctance to market a property because of regeneration may be relevant to satisfaction of s150(1)(c) even where the asking price was arguably high.