Image from Google Jackets

Green v City of Durham Council [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: London Lands Tribunal 2007Subject(s): LOC classification:
  • 711.1 $2 18
Online resources: Summary: [2007] 43 EG 202, 27 October 2007. Considers whether a claim for compensation under section 108 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was confined to first refusal, and whether the time limit for claiming had expired. The appellant (G) was permitted to erect a polytunnel and storage building on his land by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, and had done so. The compensating authority defendant council (D) made a direction that development should not be made without permission, and then refused a planning application by G under the same terms. G subsequently made a second application under the same terms which was also refused. D contended that the 12 months G had to claim compensation ran from the date of the first refusal and so was spent. This was to be decided as a preliminary issue. "Held": Compensation under section 108 was payable for the refusal of permission for development that was formerly permitted. No time limit is imposed for submitting a planning application following an article 4 direction of the 1995 Order. The first application's refusal did not preclude compensation claimed under the second. Determination made in favour of the claimant.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 141355-1001

[2007] 43 EG 202, 27 October 2007. Considers whether a claim for compensation under section 108 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was confined to first refusal, and whether the time limit for claiming had expired. The appellant (G) was permitted to erect a polytunnel and storage building on his land by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, and had done so. The compensating authority defendant council (D) made a direction that development should not be made without permission, and then refused a planning application by G under the same terms. G subsequently made a second application under the same terms which was also refused. D contended that the 12 months G had to claim compensation ran from the date of the first refusal and so was spent. This was to be decided as a preliminary issue. "Held": Compensation under section 108 was payable for the refusal of permission for development that was formerly permitted. No time limit is imposed for submitting a planning application following an article 4 direction of the 1995 Order. The first application's refusal did not preclude compensation claimed under the second. Determination made in favour of the claimant.