Preliminary issues — Refusal of planning permission for Eighth Schedule development — Claim for compensation — Whether relevant application was “made” after January 23 1985 — Whether subject premises comprised one or several buildings — Decision in favour of claimant
The claimant company is the owner of a block of 51 flats, built before July 1 1948 (the “appointed” day) and known as Lyncroft Mansions, Lyncroft Gardens, London NW6. An application for planning permission for the construction of six three-bedroomed flats in the roof space was signed, dated and posted to the respondent compensating authority on January 22 1985; the application was received by the respondent on January 25 1985. Because it later emerged that certain occupiers of the flats had leasehold interests exceeding seven years, on March 8 1985 the claimant’s agents gave notice to those persons and submitted a certificate in form B in substitution for the certificate A that originally accompanied the application.
In relation to the claimant’s reference to have determined the compensation due to them under section 169 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, three preliminary issues were referred to the tribunal: (1) whether the relevant application for planning permission was made after January 23 1985, the date the Town and Country Planning (Compensation) Act 1985 came into effect to bar a claim of the type made by the claimant; (2) whether Lyncroft Mansions comprised one or several buildings; and (3) if there are more than one building, whether they are buildings comprised in the same curtilage and are used as one unit for the purposes of any institution or undertaking.
Held 1. Section 3 of the 1985 Act provides that the Act has effect in relation to the refusal or conditional grant of planning permission on any application made on or after January 23 1985. As the word “made” is to be given its ordinary meaning, the application was made when it was put into the post on January 22 1985. It was not relevant that the respondent may have been debarred by section 27 of the 1971 Act from entertaining the application until it was accompanied by the correct certificates.
2. Lyncroft Mansions is to be regarded as one building. It has two features which suggest this: (1) the external brickwork is continuous; and (2) to the President’s eye the construction has the appearance of being a single building.
3. It was unnecessary to answer the third preliminary issue.
John Male (instructed by Portner & Jaskel) appeared for the claimant; and Timothy Corner (instructed by the solicitor to Camden London Borough Council) appeared for the respondent.