Development proposal — Architects and surveyors gave advice — Whether advice concerned a mixed development or offices only — Planning permission granted for a mixed development — Whether defendants negligent — Claim by purchaser dismissed
In 1986 the plaintiff company was considering the purchase of premises at 179 London Road, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey. They were using the firm of Anglo Haussmann Group (Holdings) Ltd to arrange the acquisition on their behalf, and that firm employed the defendant firm of architects and surveyors to negotiate with the local planning authority. The plaintiffs acquired the premises for £245,000 relying on the planning advice of the defendants. In the event the premises lacked permitted use rights as offices, the proposed development plan of the plaintiffs was contrary to the local plan and there was a foreseeable prospect that the plaintiffs’ development proposals would be rejected by the local planning authority. The plaintiffs claimed £158,350.65 as damages, because in the event they were only able to obtain planning permission for office use for part of the premises.
The defendants denied liability contending that they gave no warranty that planning permission existed or could be obtained for office use only; they were at all times concerned with and advised on a mixed development proposal.
Held The claim was dismissed.
It was largely a question of fact and the evidence given on behalf of the defendants was to be preferred. They had been concerned at all times with a mixed development and had given no assurances about an office only development proposal in their dealings with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were developers and knew they were taking a risk.
Charles Douthwaite (instructed by Denton Hall Burgin & Warrens) appeared for the plaintiffs; and Adrian Brunner (instructed by Lloyd Cooper) appeared for the respondents.
