Compulsory purchase and compensation update 2017
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPIF-06-2017-0043 |
| Pages | 528-534 |
| Date | 07 August 2017 |
| Published date | 07 August 2017 |
| Author | Gary Sams |
| Subject Matter | Property management & built environment,Real estate & property,Property valuation & finance |
Compulsory purchase and
compensation update 2017
Gary Sams
University College of Estate Management, Reading, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to provide an annual update on case law relating to compulsory
purchase and compensation.
Design/methodology/approach –Researching decisions made by the Court of Appeal and Upper Tribunal
(Lands Chamber) in the field of compensation. Commentary on the legal and valuation implications of a
selection of those cases is provided.
Findings –In the last year, there have been a number of interesting cases concerning residual valuations,
blight caused by HS2, and Tree Preservation Orders.
Research limitations/implications –The research is limited by the case law available in the last
12 months and this has been a relatively quiet year.
Practical implications –The commentary should assist practitioners to formulate claims for compensation
having regard to recent developments in case law.
Originality/value –Its originality and value lies in the fact that it is based on recent legal decisions which
have not yet been widely reported.
Keywords Compulsory purchase, Compensation, HS2, Planning compensation, Residual valuations,
Tree Preservation Order
Paper type Technical paper
Introduction
In this annual review of case law, I provide a summary of three decisions of the Upper
Tribunal (Lands Chamber). The first considers in detail the valuation of a residential
development site using the residual method. Despite embracing this method and preferring
it to direct capital comparison, the Chamber reminds us that it has not forgotten its historic
antipathy towards residual valuations. With HS2 now blighting properties up and down the
country, I look at one case in which a householder tries to overturn a refusal to accept his
blight notice. Many more are likely to follow. Finally, I summarise a case concerning a
Tree Preservation Order (TPO) in which the acquiring authority appears to shoot itself in
the foot by putting forward a last minute, potentially winning, argument, only for the Lands
Chamber to refuse to admit it.
Residual valuations and ransom value
The case of Mr Michael (Michael v. Salford City Council ) is a rare example of an interesting
case in which the claimant was unrepresented. A claimant is often unrepresented because he
does not like the professional advice he has been given. He may not understand the
complexities of the compensation claim and often puts forward a case based on emotion,
rather than logic. Consequently, cases involving unrepresented claimants are usually
dismissed summarily by the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber. There were some elements of
this in the arguments put forward by Mr Michael, but he did call two expert witnesses, and
the arguments he put forward taxed the Lands Chamber sufficiently to be of interest.
The case concerned the value of a 900 m
2
. development site, which was being acquired as
part of a comprehensive residential development scheme. A general vesting declaration
fixed the valuation date as 28 April 2008. At that time, the land was included in two
planning permissions. The first was as part of wider permission comprising 88 residential
units, of which two and a half town houses and most of a 12-unit apartment block would be
on the subject land.
Journal of Property Investment &
Finance
Vol. 35 No. 5, 2017
pp. 528-534
© Emerald PublishingLimited
1463-578X
DOI 10.1108/JPIF-06-2017-0043
Received 5 June 2017
Accepted 9 June 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-578X.htm
528
JPIF
35,5
To continue reading
Request your trial