Smith and Smith v. Staffordshire District Council (Record no. 78424)

MARC details
000 -LEADER
fixed length control field 02239cab a2200181 4500
001 - CONTROL NUMBER
control field L136735
008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION
fixed length control field 070220n2006 000 0 eng u
035 ## - SYSTEM CONTROL NUMBER
System control number (Sirsi) u136735
041 0# - LANGUAGE CODE
Language code of text/sound track or separate title eng
245 00 - TITLE STATEMENT
Title Smith and Smith v. Staffordshire District Council
Medium [electronic resource]
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC.
Date of publication, distribution, etc. 2006
520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC.
Summary, etc. LCA/119/2004, 27 June 2006. The claim in this case is for alleged loss of value to the subject property (calculated on a residual basis to take account of building costs) resulting from the claimants' inability to construct the substantial indoor swimming pool, leisure complex and garage block which they had proposed within the grounds of their property. They did obtain permission for a smaller extension. The council's case was that due to the size and scale of the proposed development, it would never have enjoyed permitted development rights; the development for which planning consent was obtained and which had actually been completed was the most that could be expected and thus there was no loss to the claimants. The claimants also claimed to have lost out financially by starting work on the original complex after receiving a letter from the council which stated that the planning permission was very likely to be granted, but only if "the Council has not taken action by an Article 4 Direction to remove the 'permitted development' rights contained in the General Development Order"."Held": it was decided that the original leisure complex would not have reasonably accepted as purely for the use and enjoyment of the claimant's family. The judge decided that the loss of value to the property by having the larger development disallowed would amount to £50 000 and that, considering building costs, this would not make a very big difference to the property's value as a whole. He ordered that the council should pay the claimants £31 700 as compensation for the works carried out prior to estoppel.
650 24 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name entry element SMITH AND SMITH V STAFFORDSHIRE DC
650 24 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name entry element TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER) 1995 ART4
651 #4 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--GEOGRAPHIC NAME
Geographic name England
Chronological subdivision 886-
856 40 - ELECTRONIC LOCATION AND ACCESS
Uniform Resource Identifier <a href="https://www.landstribunal.gov.uk/aspx/view.aspx?id=371">https://www.landstribunal.gov.uk/aspx/view.aspx?id=371</a>
Public note View the decision free of charge at www.landstribunal.gov.uk...
942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA)
Suppress in OPAC 0
Holdings
Withdrawn status Lost status Source of classification or shelving scheme Damaged status Not for loan Home library Current library Shelving location Date acquired Total Checkouts Full call number Barcode Date last seen Copy number Price effective from Koha item type
    Dewey Decimal Classification     Virtual Virtual Online 20/02/2007   ONLINE PUBLICATION 136735-1001 06/08/2019 1 06/08/2019 Journal article