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| 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