The Case of Modern Construction Limited

Considering the kind of problems and hardships that will arise, the occupant of the house needs to consider the best thing to do to avoid suffering from the anticipated problems (Becker 2014, p.25). First of all, there will be no peaceful sleep due to the noise of airplanes while on the runway. This fact is mainly due to no time restrictions, and the flights can come out or at any time. Since the detached house is very near, just 450 meters away, it will be hard to live with the condition. Once the planes start to use both runways especially, the problem will be harder since the planes may never stop (Dratler 2017, p.12). The fact that the runaway will also affect the view of open fields may affect the beautiful scenery around the place, and the occupiers of the 18 Gloss Avenue will not feel comfortable living around.

The options which are available as a result of this scheme are several. One of them is to stay in the area and suffer the problems caused by the runaway. But one thing is for sure that the residents are happy with it because a good number of them will secure employment. For this reason, the couple living in the detached house will be the ones experiencing problems at the expense of the individuals who will get new jobs or start lucrative businesses. Another option is to reduce the problem by using triple glazier in the house and benefit by establishing a business. The couple can earn much money selling to the workers and may in the process benefit a lot. This option may not be too good since they will be experiencing too much noise while at their house that may prevent them from sleeping soundly and therefore they cannot be very productive during the day.

Lastly, the best option available is to secure another residence. The occupiers can do this by selling the house to a business person and buying the available one. The acquisition of unaffected house that is similar to what they now own might be a long and expensive process, but at last, they will understand that it was worth investing. Living in the new house, they will have peaceful nights that are not full of disturbances. This option is the best remedy for the anticipated problems since the new runaway will be of great benefit to the area and there no chances of stopping its construction. Another remedy is to carry out a consultation on the level of noise associated to be able to know how much they will be affected (Hailes 2017, p. 229).

My advice if the second runway severed the private road serving and an alternative was provided will be different. Given that alternative access was to be established, the owner-occupiers of 18 Gloss Avenue will not be affected. The reason behind this is that alternative access will be provided to cater for the private road that will be broken off suddenly due to the construction of the runway. So it is advisable to stay around the place and take advantage of the opportunities that will be brought by the construction of the second runway. In the second case, it means those in authority of the airport are concerned about the welfare of the individuals and are ready to solve the problems they cause unlike in the first case.

Question 2

What the Modern Construction Limited has undergone is a case that is worth a great deal of consideration. The organization underwent the right procedures to acquire the site, and their planning permission was approved for them to construct a roadside cafe. Besides, they have incurred several costs in the preparation of the construction especially after obtaining the planning consent (Dobbs and Roberts 2017, p. 35).  For these reasons, the company has rightful ownership and occupation of the site and an attempt to take it from them means that they have to be compensated. The change in policy that the site should be left as open space is what stopped the company from continuing with the project, and their appeal led to yet another cost.

The local authority applied a compulsory acquisition to enhance the retaining of the site as open space. It is obvious that the organization was not willing to consent due to what they had already done on the piece of land. The local authority applied their power for the protection of the natural environment, and therefore they could have acquired the land in good faith. There is, therefore, a need to compensate the company all the costs they already incurred as well as for the disruptive interference (Turvey 2017, p. 50). Legislation will have to be used to determine the basis of compensation and guarantee the rights of the company affected. Among these rights is the right of notice, to appeal and to be heard. The company also has to be provided with transparent and fair procedures.

Since the acquisition is disruptive, it good that the process is implemented in a right manner. A correct implementation will ensure that the social, economic and political costs incurred are not enormous. The reason for this is that even if the procedures are efficient and fair and the compensation is a generous one, the disruption will still entail some significant costs. It is, therefore, a good idea to ensure that the company is compensated for everything they have done on the site to avoid them losing the huge amount of money. Compensating them will also mean that they will be capable of acquiring as well as working on another site if they are in a position of acquiring. Regulations should clearly and consistently set out all the valuation bases for ensuring that the compensation is done correctly.

Among the various legal provisions that cater for the compensation as far as this case is concerned is the protection of the due process and fair procedure. By this provision, all the rules need to be followed to ensure that justice, as well as protection of rights, prevails. The rules will also provide for available mechanisms for appeals and participatory planning. Good governance is the other legal provision that will enhance the accountability for good faith in the implementation of the legislation. It is also what enhances the observation of the law by the local authority as they go about the procedure of retaining the site as open space. Finally, there is the provision for equivalent compensation. This provision ensures that the affected are compensated with what is no less or no more than what they lost, whether in form of money or land (Keith et al. 2008, p. 75).

Question 3

Rating is a tax occupation as opposed to owner occupation. The occupiers are rateable in respect of both the buildings and the land they are occupying as long as the properties are not domestic or exempt. The reason behind this is that the rateable occupier is the one who will pay the tax, and this is an idea that is central to the rating system. An objection to this fact can arise since vacant property is also rateable, but it should be understood that the rates that are applied on the empty property are separate from the main system of rating (Bond and Brown 2017, p. 145).  This idea of empty rating property separately is in line with both the statutory scheme and historical development of rating. The rates are therefore levied based on the value of the occupation of the occupier’s hereditament.

The liability of the persons in occupation of the rateable property to pay rate outlined some conditions that need to be fulfilled in respect of a given chargeable financial year. One of them is that the tax is applicable during the time the ratepayer is occupying all or part of the property. The other one is that it is applicable if the hereditament is revealed at a day in non-domestic local rates for the financial year. The rules of the rating have been evolving over the centuries as far as the case law is concerned. The rating is at present based on four essential ingredients. The ingredients are used to establish whether the occupier of the property is in rateable occupation. The ingredients compose of actual occupation, exclusive occupation, beneficial occupation and occupation for not too transient a period also known as permanent occupation (Davies 2017, p.14). All the four should be present the occupier to be said to be in rateable occupation.

Actual occupation implies to the physical existence of the occupier on the land (Löffler and Siegloch 2015, p. 42). It goes ahead to imply to the acts and controls the occupier has over the land. This occupation cannot include the individuals who have a legal possession or right to occupy the land. Exclusive occupation of land is a lease on the property that implies to a grant of a right to own land exclusively for a given term. The term should be less than the time the grantor has occupied the land. This type of occupation can be confusing as far as rateability is concerned, especially when two parties have exclusive occupation for the use of land.

Beneficial occupation means occupying land by an individual openly, without permission and force by the registered owner. The person in occupation is not allowed to carry out any form of operation unless the owner has given them a special consent. The period is a rent-free period before the commencement of the lease, which allows the tenant to set up their requirements. Also, it is not necessary that the occupation is beneficial to the occupier to be rateable. Permanent occupation means that it should not be too transient and it will continue for some reasonable period (Parsons 2015, p. 23). The amount of time needed to make an occupation permanent for rateability is discussed in the case of London County v Wilkins.

References

Becker, L.C., 2014. Property Rights (routledge Revivals): Philosophic Foundations. Routledge.

Bond, P.H. and Brown, P.K., 2017. Rating valuation: principles and practice. Routledge.

Davies, B., 2017. The going rate. Land Journal, p.14.

Dobbs, D. and Roberts, C., 2017. Law of remedies: damages, equity, restitution. West Academic.

Dratler Jr, J., 2017. Licensing of intellectual property. Law Journal Press.

Hailes, O., 2017. The Politics of Property in Constitutional Reform: A Critical Response to Sir Geoffrey and Dr. Butler. NZJPIL, 15, p.229.

Keith, S., McAuslan, P., Knight, R., Lindsay, J., Munro-Faure, P., Palmer, D. and Spannenberg, L., 2008. Compulsory acquisition of land and compensation. Food and agriculture organization of the United nations (FAO).

Löffler, M. and Siegloch, S., 2015. Property taxation, local labour markets and rental housing.

Parsons, G. ed., 2015. The glossary of property terms. Taylor & Francis.

Turvey, R., 2017. The economics of real property: an analysis of property values and patterns of use. Routledge.