Chilton v Telford Development Corporation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE PURCHAS,LORD JUSTICE NEILL,LORD JUSTICE BALCOMBE |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 1986 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1986] EWCA Civ J1208-4 |
| Docket Number | 86/1096 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 08 December 1986 |
In The Matter Of A Notice Of Reference
for the Decision of the Court of Appeal (Pursuant to Section 3(4) of the Lands Tribuanl Act, 1949, 12 and 13 George Sixth Chapter 42 and Order 61 of the Rules of the Supreme Court)
[1986] EWCA Civ J1208-4
Lord Justice Purchas
Lord Justice Neill
and
Lord Justice Balcombe
86/1096
Ref/10/1983
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE LANDS TRIBUNAL
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. A. ANDERSON QC and MR. M. FOOKES (instructed by Messrs. Treasures & Rivers Wyatt, Solicitors, Gloucester) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
MR. R. CARNWATH QC and MISS A. ROBINSON (instructed by Messrs. J.C.H. Bowdley & Son, Solicitors, Shrewsbury) appeared on behalf of the Acquiring Authority
This is a Case Stated by the Lands Tribunal at the request of Mr. A.R.H. Chilton, the claimant, under section 3(4) of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949. The single Member of the tribunal had been asked to determine a preliminary point of law, and he did so on 1st April 1985.
The point arises out of the compulsory purchase and compensation provisions contained in the New Towns Act 1965 and the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Although the former Act has been repealed by the New Towns Act 1981, we are told by learned counsel that the corresponding provisions in the later Act are the same in most relevant particulars, and that the point is one of some interest generally, beyond the interests of the parties particularly involved in this reference.
The point raises a consideration of the relevant date, or dates, of entry and taking possession of land by the acquiring authority for the purpose of compensation. The acquiring authority involved is the Telford Development Corporation.
The question posed was summarised in the Decision of the single Member in these words:
"Possession of the land acquired was taken by the acquiring authority in several parcels and the preliminary issue is concerned with the question whether there is a single date, namely, the date on which possession of the first parcel was taken, or several dates namely, the individual dates on which possession of the several parcels was taken, which is or are material for the purposes of valuation".
The parties had agreed the facts so far as they were relevant; they are as follows: The land of which the claimant at all material times was owner-occupier, and which he farmed, consisted of 67.87 acres or thereabouts of agricultural land at Trench Lodge Farm, Trench, Telford, Shropshire.
"On 10th July 1973 the acquiring authority made the Telford Development Corporation (Hadley Park No. 1) Compulsory Purchase Order 1973 under Section 7 of the New Towns Act 1965. The order was confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 10th March 1978. The order related to the 67.87 acres and other lands"
required by the developing corporation for their activities under the New Towns Act.
A notice to treat in accordance with the statutory provisions was served upon, and dated, 3rd May 1978; it related to the whole of the 67.87 acres. On the same date the acquiring authority served on the claimant one notice of entry relating to the whole of the 67.87 acres.
As the history evolved, the acquiring authority went into physical occupation of individual parcels of the whole area over a period of 28 months. The first date of entry, 5th June 1978, involved 4.62 acres; thereafter there were three more areas involved and entries made, until 6th December 1978, which I mention specifically because in respect of that area, 4.9 acres, the acquiring authority purported to serve a "Revised Notice". No point has been taken on this, and for the purposes of this appeal it can be ignored. It is common ground that the "revised notice" was of no formal effect.
The remaining acts of taking possession and entering occurred, as to 3.95 acres, on 1st January 1980; as to 1.60 acres on 1st January 1980, and then an area which is over half the whole of the area involved, 35.501 acres, on 4th October 1980. After 5th June 1978 in fact the claimant remained in occupation of the parcels not previously entered, until such time as the acquiring authority in fact entered into physical occupation. Saving only the area of 4.9 acres entered on 6th December 1978, there is no evidence or information as to any further sort of notice, but it must be assumed that there was some kind of communication between the parties. That is how things progressed.
The dispute, as is clear from the question posed, relates to the effective date of entry and taking possession for the purposes of compensation. But the particular statutory provisions which must be considered relate mainly to inhibit or restrict the exercise of the powers to acquire compulsorily by way of granting some limited protection to the owner or occupiers involved.
In very short summary, and by way of introduction, the statutory procedure involves two main steps: first of all, the obtaining of the compulsory purchase powers; there are provisions in that process whereby the landowner or occupier can oppose the confirming of the order; and secondly, those powers having been confirmed, how they are to be exercised. They are exercised subject to these restrictions: First of all, there must be a notice to treat served under section 5 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; then, that having been done, there are further restrictions on the acquiring authority preventing that authority from entering upon the land without giving at least days' notice.
It is now convenient to turn to the statutory provisions with which we are concerned. I start by reading section 12(1) of the New Towns Act 1965:
"Part I of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 shall apply in relation to the acquisition of land under this Act subject to any necessary adaptations and to the provisions of Part I of Schedule 6 to this Act".
Section 11 (1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act is replaced by paragraph 4 of Schedule 6, the relevant provisions of which are:
(a) on every occupier of any of that land, and
(b) on every person (other than such an occupier)—
………..
describing the land to which the notice relates and stating their intention to enter on and take possession thereof at the expiration of such period (not being less than fourteen days) as may be specified in the notice".
-
4(l) "If the acquiring authority have, in respect of any of the land, served notice to treat on every owner of that land, they may at any time thereafter serve a notice—
I pause to emphasise the words "describing the land to which the notice relates"; that is the notice of intention to enter. The period is one of not less than fourteen days, and therefore envisages periods of greater notice if appropriate.
Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 reads as follows:
"At the expiration of the period specified in such a notice (or, where two or more such notices are required, and the periods specified in the several notices do not expire at the same time, of the last of those periods to expire), or at any time thereafter, the acquiring authority may enter on and take possession of the land to which the notice or notices relate without previous consent or compliance with section 11 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, but subject to payment of the like compensation for the land of which possession is taken, and interest on the compensation agreed or awarded, as they would have been required to pay if those provisions had been complied with".
Sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph 4 of the Schedule refers first of all to the cases where there may be more than one occupier or owner in respect of whom notices of intention to enter must be served, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decision Nº ACQ 320 2010. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 30-08-2012
...Ltd v Birkenhead Corpn [1975] AC 99 The following further cases were cited in argument: Chilton v Telford Development Corporation [1987] 3 All ER 992 Hughes v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council [1991] 1 AC 282 R (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton District Council [2011] 1 AC......
- GLASSHOUSE PROPERTIES Ltd v Depoartment of TRANSPORT
-
Changyou.com Ltd
...considered. (7) CVC/Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd. v. Demarco Almeida, 2002 CILR 77, considered. (8) Chilton v. Telford Dev. Corp., [1987] 1 W.L.R. 872; [1987] 3 All E.R. 992; [1987] 1 EGLR 12, referred to. (9) de Freitas v. Agriculture Secy., [1999] 1 A.C. 69; [1998] 3 W.L.R. 675, follow......
-
Singh v The Secretary of State for the Environment and Another
...the decisions of this Court in Prest v. Secretary of State for Wales (1982) 81 LGR 193, and Chilton v. Telford Development Corporation (1987) 1 WLR 872. 86 We do not find it necessary to examine these cases because this line of authority, and the very point which Mr Payton sought to establi......