J Sample: stop-notice compensation and appeal costs
J Sample (Warkworth) Limited v Alnwick District Council (1984) 48 P&CR 474 concerns the losses recoverable after a stop notice interrupted construction of a house.
The Tribunal allowed several practical consequences of the delay, including a voluntary payment made to keep the purchaser’s sale together. But it treated the costs of the enforcement appeal separately and did not include them in the compensation award.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- (1984) 48 P&CR 474; [1984] JPL 670; [1984] 2 EGLR 191
- Court
- Lands Tribunal
- Judgment date
- 17th May 1984
- Judge
- Mr Hall
A house stopped partway through construction
The council served enforcement and stop notices in September 1981 concerning a house at Hillcrest Park Estate, Alnwick. The purchaser had already sold their previous home.
The enforcement notice was eventually quashed because the alleged matters did not constitute a breach of planning control. Meanwhile, the council had approved amendments and indicated that it would not prosecute if work resumed, but had not withdrawn the notices.
The resulting claim arose under section 177 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. That was the historical compensation provision before the Tribunal.
The losses which were allowed
The award included £360 for workforce idle time, £126 for rectifying deterioration, £400 towards the purchasers’ temporary accommodation and £2,236.65 in lost interest. The total was £3,122.65.
The accommodation payment was voluntary, but the Tribunal regarded it as a reasonable response which could avoid losing the sale or incurring greater expense. A loss was not necessarily excluded merely because the developer had agreed to pay it without litigation.
Christmas holidays and severe weather delayed completion after the council’s assurance about prosecution. On these facts, those events did not break the causal connection with the stop-notice prohibition.
Enforcement appeal costs were different
The Tribunal refused the £1,460 claimed for appealing the enforcement notice. Those costs were not directly attributable to the prohibition in the stop notice, even though successfully challenging the enforcement notice had been necessary to establish the compensation entitlement.
The appeal had its own costs procedure, and no costs had been awarded there. That should not be confused with the costs of the compensation reference itself, which the Tribunal awarded to the claimants.
Do not turn the foreseeability discussion into a firm rule
The member expressed a tentative view that the statutory words ‘directly attributable’ were not qualified by reasonable foreseeability. He expressly said that the distinction did not affect any part of his decision on these facts.
It would therefore overstate the case to present that observation as a definitive rule resolving every compensation claim.
Read this alongside Hobbs (Quarries) for another historical planning-compensation authority. A current claim requires its own statutory entitlement, causation, evidence and applicable limits to be checked.
Read the J Sample report
Gold Members can read the complete report below. It is supplied as an 18-page PDF of the text reported at [1984] 2 EGLR 191–194.
J Sample Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026