(1) A joint planning board . . . shall, on being authorised to do so by the Secretary of State, have the same power to acquire land compulsorily as the local authorities to whom section 226 applies have under that section.
(2) Such a board shall have the same power to acquire land by agreement as the local authorities mentioned in subsection (1) of section 227 have under that subsection.
(3) Sections 226(1) and (7), 227, 229, 230, 232, 233 and 235 to 242 apply with the necessary modifications as if any such board were a local authority to which those sections
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
This Practice Note discusses the common law doctrine of privity of contract; the equitable and statutory exceptions to it; how the doctrine affects enforcing a contract against a third party and what happens when, notwithstanding the lack of privity, a contract has an indirect effect on a third
Coronavirus (COVID-19): The guidance detailing normal practice set out in this Practice Note may be affected by measures concerning process and procedure in the civil courts that have been introduced as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. For guidance, see Practice Note: Coronavirus
A limited company that proposes to issue redeemable shares must comply with the provisions of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006).Why do companies issue redeemable shares?A company may wish to issue redeemable shares so that it has an alternative way to return surplus capital to shareholders without
This Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to hear a dispute and is applied
0330 161 1234
To view the latest version of this document and millions of others like it, sign-in to LexisLibrary or register for a free trial.