Jumbuk Ltd v West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive [electronic resource]
Jumbuk Ltd v West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive [electronic resource]
- 2008
[2008] EWLands CON_19_2007, 4 February 2008. The Lands Tribunnal had to determine to compensation payable to the claimant company (J) whose property had been compulsorily acquired by the respondent authority (W). A company associated with J had acquired the property on a speculative basis, and had obtained planning permission for a mixed retail and commercial development, shortly before the authority announced its intention to build a tramway through the property. The tramway project fell through and planning permission expired. The property was then transferred to J and leased to a third party to use as a car park. The tramway project was then revived and the authority made a compulsory purchase. An issue arose as to whether it was appropriate to value the property by means of residual appraisal as argued by W; or by assuming that planning permission could have been expected, as argued by J. Held: compensation assessed. The Tribunal accepted that it was appropriate to assume the existence of a grant of planning permission, Spirerose Ltd v Transport for London applied. Accordingly, the property was valued at the price that a prospective purchaser would have been prepared to pay for the property at the valuation date.
JUMBUK LTD V WEST MIDLANDS PASSENGER TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
SPIREROSE LTD V TRANSPORT FOR LONDON
POINTE GOURDE QUARRYING AND TRANSPORT CO LTD V CROWN LANDS SUPERINTENDENT
WATERS V WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
IRC V CLAY
SNOOK & ORS V SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWLands CON_19_2007, 4 February 2008. The Lands Tribunnal had to determine to compensation payable to the claimant company (J) whose property had been compulsorily acquired by the respondent authority (W). A company associated with J had acquired the property on a speculative basis, and had obtained planning permission for a mixed retail and commercial development, shortly before the authority announced its intention to build a tramway through the property. The tramway project fell through and planning permission expired. The property was then transferred to J and leased to a third party to use as a car park. The tramway project was then revived and the authority made a compulsory purchase. An issue arose as to whether it was appropriate to value the property by means of residual appraisal as argued by W; or by assuming that planning permission could have been expected, as argued by J. Held: compensation assessed. The Tribunal accepted that it was appropriate to assume the existence of a grant of planning permission, Spirerose Ltd v Transport for London applied. Accordingly, the property was valued at the price that a prospective purchaser would have been prepared to pay for the property at the valuation date.
JUMBUK LTD V WEST MIDLANDS PASSENGER TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
SPIREROSE LTD V TRANSPORT FOR LONDON
POINTE GOURDE QUARRYING AND TRANSPORT CO LTD V CROWN LANDS SUPERINTENDENT
WATERS V WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
IRC V CLAY
SNOOK & ORS V SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL
England and Wales--1543-