R v Westminster City Council and others ex p Mount Cook Land Ltd and another [electronic resource]
Series: Estates Gazette ; 25 October 2003, 137(1) | Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; [2004] JPL 470-497(27)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2003] EWCA Civ 1346, 14 October 2003. The appellant (R) was the freeholder of a building in Oxford Street, Lonodn let to a tenant under a 999-year lease. The appellant requested judical review for planning permission given by Westminster City Council to the tenant to make external alterations to the building which included adjustments to the shopfront and additional canopies on the grounds as these would conflict with the appellant's own development plans which had gained the support of local landowners. The appeal was dismissed as the changes proposed by the tenant were not seen to damage the conservation area of which it was a part. In only exceptional circumstances where planning permission had already been granted to make improvements would alternative proposals by another party be considered. Therefore R's proposals were considered to be material considerations and were consequently dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS67134 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 124180-1001 |
[2003] EWCA Civ 1346, 14 October 2003. The appellant (R) was the freeholder of a building in Oxford Street, Lonodn let to a tenant under a 999-year lease. The appellant requested judical review for planning permission given by Westminster City Council to the tenant to make external alterations to the building which included adjustments to the shopfront and additional canopies on the grounds as these would conflict with the appellant's own development plans which had gained the support of local landowners. The appeal was dismissed as the changes proposed by the tenant were not seen to damage the conservation area of which it was a part. In only exceptional circumstances where planning permission had already been granted to make improvements would alternative proposals by another party be considered. Therefore R's proposals were considered to be material considerations and were consequently dismissed.