Image from Google Jackets

Church Cottage Investments Limited v Hillingdon LBC

Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; 1988 RVR 225-228(4)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: LT 18 August 1988. The claimant`s (C) property comprised 38 self contained flats in a 3 and 4 storey flat roofed building. In November 1983 they applied for planning permission to construct 4 self contained flats on the existing 3 storey part. The council failed to make a decision within the statutory time. In December 1984 C`s claim to the SoS was dismissed. In February C served a notice on the council claiming the value of the property was less than it would have been if planning permission had been granted and claiming compensation equal to the difference in value. This was based on Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s169 which entitles them to compensation for a refusal of planning permission for an enlargement not exceeding 1/10th of the cubic capacity of the existing building. The council claimed that the extension would cause problems of overloading but C claimed that measures would be taken to prevent this. It was held that the extension would not receive building regulations
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS40143 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 21733-1001

LT 18 August 1988. The claimant`s (C) property comprised 38 self contained flats in a 3 and 4 storey flat roofed building. In November 1983 they applied for planning permission to construct 4 self contained flats on the existing 3 storey part. The council failed to make a decision within the statutory time. In December 1984 C`s claim to the SoS was dismissed. In February C served a notice on the council claiming the value of the property was less than it would have been if planning permission had been granted and claiming compensation equal to the difference in value. This was based on Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s169 which entitles them to compensation for a refusal of planning permission for an enlargement not exceeding 1/10th of the cubic capacity of the existing building. The council claimed that the extension would cause problems of overloading but C claimed that measures would be taken to prevent this. It was held that the extension would not receive building regulations