Compulsory purchase and compensation update – 2013
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPIF-07-2013-0038 |
| Date | 20 September 2013 |
| Published date | 20 September 2013 |
| Pages | 602-609 |
| Author | Gary Sams |
| Subject Matter | Property management & built environment |
LAW BRIEFING
Compulsory purchase and
compensation update – 2013
Gary Sams
College of Estate Management, Preston, UK
Abstract
Purpose – Annual update on caselaw relating to compulsory purchase and compensation. This
paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – Research of decisions made by the Court of Appeal and lands
tribunal in the filed of compensation. Commentary on the legal and valuation implications of a
selection of those decisions.
Findings – In the last year there have been a number of interesting cases concerning whether losses
based on the value of land can be claimed under the head of disturbance.
Research limitations/implications – Theresearch is naturally limited by the caselaw available in
the last 12 months but this has been a relatively busy year.
Practical implications – The commentary should assist practitioners to formulate claims for
compensation having regard to recent developments in case law.
Originality/value – It is originality and value relies on the fact that it is based on new legal decisions
which have not yet been widely reported.
Keywords Compulsory purchase,Compensation, Planning
Paper type Technical paper
Introduction
The House of Lords decision in Transport for London v. Spirerose Ltd [2009] 1 WLR
1797 is one of the most important in recent years and makes significant changes to the
planning assumptions to be made when valuing land which is subject to compulsory
purchase. It also castsdoubt on the well established principle thatland should be valued
as if offered for saleby a hypothetical willing seller inits actual physical condition at the
valuation date. It suggests instead that the landshould be valued is if sold at such time,
and together with such other land, as would have been likely in the no-scheme world.
It is inevitable that such an important decision will be used by advocates to stretch
the established boundaries of the compensation claim, and in this update I will look at a
couple of cases in which those boundaries have had to be reaffirmed. In particular
Spirerose does not permit the land to taken to be valued as an operational hotel at the
valuation date, when in fact it is actually a scruffy block of shops and flats!
I also consider a couple of cases which look at disturbance under rule 6 and the
extent to which the disturbance claim can include items based on the value of land.
I start, however, with a rare case concerning compensation for the revocation or
amendment of terms attached to a planning consent.
Compensation for changes to planning conditions
The Court of Appeal decision in MWH Associates and Wrexham Borough Council (2013)
All E R (D) 113 (Feb) caught my eye as it has relevance to a property I manage. My site
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-578X.htm
Journal of Property Investment &
Finance
Vol. 31 No. 6, 2013
pp. 602-609
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-578X
DOI 10.1108/JPIF-07-2013-0038
JPIF
31,6
602
To continue reading
Request your trial