Brickkiln Waste -v NIE
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Spence |
| Judgment Date | 30 September 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | R/41/2009 (Part 2) |
| Court | Lands Tribunal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 30 September 2014 |
LANDS TRIBUNAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
LANDS TRIBUNAL AND COMPENSATION ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1964
LAND COMPENSATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1982
ELECTRICITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1992
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE
R/41/2009
BETWEEN
BRICKKILN WASTE LIMITED - CLAIMANT
AND
NORTHERN IRELAND ELECTRICITY – RESPONDENT
PART II
Re: Lands at Electra Road, Maydown, Londonderry
Lands Tribunal - Henry M Spence MRICS Dip.Rating IRRV (Hons)
Background
1. This is the second part of a reference whereby Brickkiln Waste Limited (“the claimant”)
has referred to the Tribunal for assessment of a claim for compensation from Northern
Ireland Electricity (“the respondent”) for the grant of a necessary wayleave (“the
NWL”). On the 7th May 2009 (“the valuation date”), in accordance with paragraphs 10
and 12 of Schedule 4 to the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 (“the 1992
Order”), the NWL granted consent to the respondent to retain its lines and pylons (“the
equipment”) on the claimant’s lands.
2. Following a review of the facts and the law in the Part 1 hearing, the Tribunal decided
that further consideration of the valuation evidence needed to take place and five
questions were put to the valuation experts.
Procedural Matters
3. The reference was conducted on behalf of the claimant by Mr Mark Orr QC and Mr
Barry Denyer-Green BL while Mr Stephen Shaw QC represented the respondent.
Each party provided evidence from an expert valuer with regard to the compensation
to be paid. Mr Brian Kennedy provided expert valuation evidence on behalf of the
claimant while Mr Kenneth Crothers provided expert valuation evidence on behalf of
the respondent. Mr Kennedy and Mr Crothers are experienced Chartered Surveyors.
4. Expert planning evidence was also submitted to the Tribunal. Ms Gemma Jobling
presented this evidence on behalf of the claimant and Mr Terence McCaw on behalf of
the respondent. Ms Jobling is an experienced planner and Mr McCaw is an
experienced planner and architect.
5. Mr John Doran of Brickkiln Waste Limited provided factual evidence. Mr Doran also
facilitated an inspection of the Brickkiln site.
6. The Tribunal is grateful to the legal representatives and experts for their detailed
submissions and evidence. It is also worth noting that, at the request of the
respondent and agreed to by the claimant, a procedure known as “hot tubbing” was
introduced for the first time in the Tribunal, to allow the experts to give concurrent
evidence. It was generally agreed that the “hot tubbing” experiment was a success in
that it provided a quicker and more efficient means of giving expert evidence to the
Tribunal. The Tribunal is grateful to the parties for their participation.
The Interim Decision
7. The findings of the Part I hearing are summarised in paragraph 24 of the Interim
decision:
“(i) Schedules 3 and 4 of the 1992 Order clearly distinguish between the
compulsory acquisition of land or other interests in land by the licence holder
and the acquisition of NWLS. The former are dealt with in a schedule headed
‘Compulsory Acquisition of Land’ while the latter may be found in the
Schedule entitled ‘Other Powers’ of licence holders. Schedule 4 does not
include any equivalent application of the compulsory purchase provisions of
Schedule 6 to the 1972 Act which are included in Schedule 3. In our view this
simply reflects the acceptance by Parliament that a NWL does not involve the
acquisition of an interest in land – see Stynes.
(ii) Horn was a standard case of the compulsory acquisition of freehold farming
land by a local authority in which the court calculated compensation in
accordance with the principle of equivalence. Turris also involved a
compulsory purchase order and a Deed of Grant of a permanent easement.
To continue reading
Request your trial