Image from Google Jackets

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.
Holdings
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.