Richmond Gateways Ltd v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council
Richmond Gateways Ltd v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council
- 1988
- Rating & Valuation Reporter 28(2) March 1988, 44-48 .
LT 14 October 1987. In February 1984 the claimants (R) applied to the council for planning permission to enlarge a building by erecting a flat on the roof. The council refused and R`s appeal was refused by the SoS Environment in January 1985 which was agreed to be the valuation date. R sought compensation under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s169(2) for the difference in value of their interest in the building with and without the grant of permission assessed in accordance with Land Compensation Act 1961 s5 . R claimed £62,388, the difference between the value of the flat, claimed to be £250,000 and the cost of construction. The council disputed the value of the flat claiming it to be nearer £170,000 which was less than the cost of construction and therefore compensation was nil. It was held that compensation should be £12,200 the court valuing the flat at £200,000 based on prices of similar properties in the area.
REFUSAL
LT 14 October 1987. In February 1984 the claimants (R) applied to the council for planning permission to enlarge a building by erecting a flat on the roof. The council refused and R`s appeal was refused by the SoS Environment in January 1985 which was agreed to be the valuation date. R sought compensation under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s169(2) for the difference in value of their interest in the building with and without the grant of permission assessed in accordance with Land Compensation Act 1961 s5 . R claimed £62,388, the difference between the value of the flat, claimed to be £250,000 and the cost of construction. The council disputed the value of the flat claiming it to be nearer £170,000 which was less than the cost of construction and therefore compensation was nil. It was held that compensation should be £12,200 the court valuing the flat at £200,000 based on prices of similar properties in the area.
REFUSAL