Image from Google Jackets

Jumbuk Ltd v West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2008] EWLands CON_19_2007, 4 February 2008. The Lands Tribunnal had to determine to compensation payable to the claimant company (J) whose property had been compulsorily acquired by the respondent authority (W). A company associated with J had acquired the property on a speculative basis, and had obtained planning permission for a mixed retail and commercial development, shortly before the authority announced its intention to build a tramway through the property. The tramway project fell through and planning permission expired. The property was then transferred to J and leased to a third party to use as a car park. The tramway project was then revived and the authority made a compulsory purchase. An issue arose as to whether it was appropriate to value the property by means of residual appraisal as argued by W; or by assuming that planning permission could have been expected, as argued by J. Held: compensation assessed. The Tribunal accepted that it was appropriate to assume the existence of a grant of planning permission, Spirerose Ltd v Transport for London applied. Accordingly, the property was valued at the price that a prospective purchaser would have been prepared to pay for the property at the valuation date.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Date due Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 145302-1001

[2008] EWLands CON_19_2007, 4 February 2008. The Lands Tribunnal had to determine to compensation payable to the claimant company (J) whose property had been compulsorily acquired by the respondent authority (W). A company associated with J had acquired the property on a speculative basis, and had obtained planning permission for a mixed retail and commercial development, shortly before the authority announced its intention to build a tramway through the property. The tramway project fell through and planning permission expired. The property was then transferred to J and leased to a third party to use as a car park. The tramway project was then revived and the authority made a compulsory purchase. An issue arose as to whether it was appropriate to value the property by means of residual appraisal as argued by W; or by assuming that planning permission could have been expected, as argued by J. Held: compensation assessed. The Tribunal accepted that it was appropriate to assume the existence of a grant of planning permission, Spirerose Ltd v Transport for London applied. Accordingly, the property was valued at the price that a prospective purchaser would have been prepared to pay for the property at the valuation date.