Scheduling Monuments
The Rose Theatre Case
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4282704 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Joanna Goyder (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1992 |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 353-358 |
| Publication date | 1992-07-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Cultural Property (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0940-7391 • E-ISSN: 1465-7317 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0940739192000389 |
| OpenAlex | W2116758679 |
| Language | EN |
1 SummaryIn R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co [1990] 1 All ER 754, Schiemann J. held that no ordinary member of the public, nor even a very large number of members of the public who have joined together for that very purpose, has any standing to challenge a decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment not to schedule a site as a monument of national importance under Section 1(3) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Moreover, the Secretary of State may base the exercise of his discretion on a number of factors in addition to the consideration of whether or not the site is a monument of national importance
Archaeology · Discretion · Economics · Management · National monument · Operations research · Political science · Rose (mathematics · Schedule · State (computer science · Computer Science · Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation · Engineering · History · Law · Legal Issues in South Africa · Public Administration · Architecture
| Highly cited | No |
|---|