LCA/119/2004, 27 June 2006. The claim in this case is for alleged loss of value to the subject property (calculated on a residual basis to take account of building costs) resulting from the claimants' inability to construct the substantial indoor swimming pool, leisure complex and garage block which they had proposed within the grounds of their property. They did obtain permission for a smaller extension. The council's case was that due to the size and scale of the proposed development, it would never have enjoyed permitted development rights; the development for which planning consent was obtained and which had actually been completed was the most that could be expected and thus there was no loss to the claimants. The claimants also claimed to have lost out financially by starting work on the original complex after receiving a letter from the council which stated that the planning permission was very likely to be granted, but only if "the Council has not taken action by an Article 4 Direction to remove the 'permitted development' rights contained in the General Development Order"."Held": it was decided that the original leisure complex would not have reasonably accepted as purely for the use and enjoyment of the claimant's family. The judge decided that the loss of value to the property by having the larger development disallowed would amount to £50 000 and that, considering building costs, this would not make a very big difference to the property's value as a whole. He ordered that the council should pay the claimants £31 700 as compensation for the works carried out prior to estoppel.