Church Cottage Investments Ltd v Hillingdon London Borough
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 280 (6304) 4 October 1986, 101-102 (2)Publication details: 1986Subject(s): Summary: LT 7 July 1986 (Ref/127/1985) A preliminary issue in a reference under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s169 and s179 claiming compensation for refusal of planning permission for development of a class specified in para. 3 of Sched. 8 of the 1971 Act. The preliminary issue was whether the property comprising 38 self-contained flats was one building, as the claimants contended, or more than one building, as the compensating authority contended. The property was divided into 5 main sections, each connected to the next, so that the front and rear elevations had a continuous aspect. Planning permission had been sought to construct 4 self-contained flats, two on top of two sections. LT agreed with the claimants` expert`s evidence that the property was one building, being particularly influenced by continuous bonding of the exterior brickwork. The preliminary issue was decided in favour of the claimants.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS36959 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 1242-1001 |
LT 7 July 1986 (Ref/127/1985) A preliminary issue in a reference under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s169 and s179 claiming compensation for refusal of planning permission for development of a class specified in para. 3 of Sched. 8 of the 1971 Act. The preliminary issue was whether the property comprising 38 self-contained flats was one building, as the claimants contended, or more than one building, as the compensating authority contended. The property was divided into 5 main sections, each connected to the next, so that the front and rear elevations had a continuous aspect. Planning permission had been sought to construct 4 self-contained flats, two on top of two sections. LT agreed with the claimants` expert`s evidence that the property was one building, being particularly influenced by continuous bonding of the exterior brickwork. The preliminary issue was decided in favour of the claimants.