Buckle v Holderness BC
Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; [1996] 36 RVR 86-91(6)Publication details: 1996Subject(s): Summary: LT 9 January 1995. The applicant had been refused permission to fell a tree which was apparently affecting the foundations of his nearby property. As a result he claimed compensation in respect of remedial works, including underpinning. The sum payable was decided by the tribunal on the basis that even if the tree had been felled some remedial work would need to be undertaken.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS55070 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 13960-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
LT 9 January 1995. The applicant had been refused permission to fell a tree which was apparently affecting the foundations of his nearby property. As a result he claimed compensation in respect of remedial works, including underpinning. The sum payable was decided by the tribunal on the basis that even if the tree had been felled some remedial work would need to be undertaken.