Image from Google Jackets

Co-operative Retail Services Ltd v Wycombe DC

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1989) 35 EG 50Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: LT Ref 1174/1986 4 July 1988. A reference to determine the compensation for land taken for redevelopment of a town centre site. The claimants (C) contended for a valuation of £577,500 on a presumption that consent would be granted for offices , or £304,000 if consent was granted for high-tech buildings. The acquiring authority (W) valued the site at £240,000 for high-tech, light industrial or warehouse use. C contended that the premises came within the B1 Use Class and was, therefore, available for office development. W contended that the value for offices would be less than that for high-tech. The LT considered that although it was a backland site , there was potential for office development. The claimant`s valuation best reflected prevailing levels of values for centrally located sites, but because of the location the figure was reduced to £495,000. This was due to 1) the possible depreciating effect of a delay in obtaining consent for office development and 2) there was some risk
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS41389 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 29854-1001

LT Ref 1174/1986 4 July 1988. A reference to determine the compensation for land taken for redevelopment of a town centre site. The claimants (C) contended for a valuation of £577,500 on a presumption that consent would be granted for offices , or £304,000 if consent was granted for high-tech buildings. The acquiring authority (W) valued the site at £240,000 for high-tech, light industrial or warehouse use. C contended that the premises came within the B1 Use Class and was, therefore, available for office development. W contended that the value for offices would be less than that for high-tech. The LT considered that although it was a backland site , there was potential for office development. The claimant`s valuation best reflected prevailing levels of values for centrally located sites, but because of the location the figure was reduced to £495,000. This was due to 1) the possible depreciating effect of a delay in obtaining consent for office development and 2) there was some risk