Decision Nº LCA 24 2010. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 15-10-2015 , [2015] UKUT 0534 (LC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] UKUT 0534 (LC) |
| Date | 15 October 2015 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) |
| Judgement Number | LCA 24 2010 |
|
UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)
|
UT Neutral citation number: [2015] UKUT 0534 (LC)
Case Numbers: LCA/24/2010,
LCA/102/2013 & others
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
COMPENSATION – Land Compensation Act 1973 Part I – aerodrome – preliminary issues – runway or apron alterations – relevant date – estoppel – limitation - validity of claim notices – occupation by government department - whether alterations pursuant to a single planning permission but separated by five years a single “scheme” – Johnston references dismissed – Dandy references proceed on limited grounds
BETWEEN:
HAMISH G JOHNSTON & OTHERS
PHILIP JOHN DANDY & OTHERS Claimants
and
TAG FARNBOROUGH AIRPORT LIMITED Respondent
Re: Tanglewood
175 Sycamore Road,
Farnborough
Hampshire GU14 6RF
and other properties
Before: Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President
Sitting at: Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
on
6-10, 13-16, 20-24, 27-28, and 30-31 July 2015
Richard Wald and James Burton, instructed by Hugh James, solicitors, for the represented claimants
Peter Village QC and Andrew Tabachnik, instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills, solicitors, for the respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2015
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
Brunt v Southampton International Airport Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 93
Davies v Mid Glamorgan County Council (1979) 38 P & CR 727
Donaldson v Hereford and Worcester County Council (1998) 76 P & CR 93
Fennessy v London City Airport Ltd [1995] 2 EGLR 167
Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749
Natt v Osman [2014] EWCA Civ 1520
Price v Caerphilly County Borough Council [2005] 1 EGLR 157
R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex p. Plymouth City Airport Ltd (2001) 82 P & CR 20
Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd SA v Nigerian Produce Marketing Ltd [1972] AC 741
Table of contents Paragraph
|
Introduction |
1 |
|
The proceedings |
5 |
|
Representation |
15 |
|
Witnesses |
19 |
|
Compensation for depreciation to the value of land caused by the use of runway or apron alterations |
24 |
|
The facts in outline |
37 |
|
The issues |
122 |
|
Johnston issue 4: Are the works on which the claims are based “runway or apron alterations” within the meaning of section 9(6) of the Act? |
125 |
|
Johnston issues 5(a) and 1: What was the “relevant date” for the purpose of the Johnston claims, and were the notices of reference served too late? |
172 |
|
Johnston issue 5(b): if the relevant date was earlier than 1 January 2003, is TAG nonetheless estopped from denying that 1 January 2003 was the relevant date? |
178 |
|
Johnston issue 3: Did the claimants serve valid notices of claim? |
240 |
|
Johnston issue 2: Are the claims barred by section 84(1) because at the relevant date the Aerodrome was in the occupation of a government department? |
255 |
|
Conclusion on Johnston references |
307 |
|
The application to strike out and notices of withdrawal |
308 |
|
Dandy issue 4: Are the works on which the claims are based (or any of them) “runway or apron alterations” within the meaning of section 9(6) of the Act? |
312 |
|
Dandy issue 5: Can the works carried out in 2001 and 2002, and the works carried out between 2008 and 2012, be regarded as a single set of runway or apron alterations? |
327 |
|
Dandy issue 6: What was the “relevant date” (or “relevant dates”) for the purpose of the Dandy claims? |
350 |
|
Dandy issue 1: Are the claims (or any part of them) barred by limitation? |
355 |
|
Dandy issue 2: Are any parts of the claims barred by section 84(1) of the Act? |
357 |
|
Dandy issue 3: Did the Claimants (or any of them) have “qualifying interests” at the material times entitling them to claim compensation under the Act? |
358 |
|
Conclusion on Dandy references |
364 |
Introduction
-
Farnborough Aerodrome in Hampshire can fairly claim to be the birth-place of British aviation and the cradle of the Royal Air Force. On 16 October 1908 the American showman Samuel Cody completed the UK’s first powered flight there, covering 1,600 feet in his “Army Aeroplane no. 1”. In 1911 the Air Battalion, Royal Engineers was formed at Farnborough, the predecessor of the Royal Flying Corps and thus of the RAF. Airships and balloons for military use were manufactured there and in 1913 the black sheds (now Grade 2A listed buildings) were built as hangars for aircraft evaluation. Under the ownership and control of the Ministry of Defence the Aerodrome was successively the home of the Royal Aircraft Factory from 1911 to 1918, a vital centre for aircraft research and test pilot training during and after the Second World War, and the base of the Royal Aircraft Establishment until 1994. At its peak in the 1960s, when the Empire Test Pilot School was based at the Aerodrome, more than 38,000 military air transport movements took place each year from three operational runways and more than 10,000 people worked at the site. Since 1948 the Aerodrome has been the home of the biennial Farnborough Airshow, now the largest trade exhibition of any kind in the world, attracting crowds of over 250,000.
-
Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 gives a right to compensation where the value of an interest in land has been depreciated by physical factors caused by the use of certain public works, including any aerodrome. The physical factors relevant for this purpose include noise, vibration and artificial lighting. The measure of compensation is the depreciation in the value of land caused by those factors.
-
These references concern two groups of claims under Part I of the 1973 Act arising out of work undertaken by the respondent, TAG Farnborough Airport Ltd, between October 2000 and July 2012 to adapt the Aerodrome from its former military use to fit it for modern civilian aviation. The Aerodrome is now operated by TAG as the UK’s only dedicated business aviation airport. It is common ground that TAG would be the responsible authority for the purpose of any claims in relation to works at the Aerodrome falling within Part I of the 1973 Act.
-
The Aerodrome lies 1.6km south of Farnborough town centre. The claimants are residents of Farnborough and surrounding villages whose homes are in the vicinity of the Aerodrome and its flight path and who claim to have been adversely affected by the changes which have taken place since 2000. This decision is not concerned with whether the claimants’ peaceful enjoyment of their homes has been disturbed and the value of their property consequently devalued, but only with whether they have a right to bring claims under Part I of the 1973 Act; I should nonetheless record at the outset that the merits of the claimants’ complaints are disputed by TAG.
The proceedings
-
The original references for compensation were commenced in December 2009 by the owners of 264 homes in the vicinity of the Aerodrome; those references have been referred to as the Johnston proceedings and focus on works undertaken at the Aerodrome before 1 January 2003. A second group of references by the owners of five Farnborough properties was commenced in July 2013; these are referred to as the Dandy proceedings and relate to works carried out at the Aerodrome up to July 2012. The claimants in the Dandy proceedings are also claimants in the Johnston proceedings.
-
There were originally 264 separate claims in the Johnston proceedings of which 37 have subsequently been withdrawn, including a number which were withdrawn during or shortly before the hearing, leaving 227.
-
A claim for compensation following alterations to an aerodrome may not be made under Part I of the 1973 Act earlier than 12 months from the “relevant date” i.e. the date on which the public works were first used after completion of the alterations giving rise to the claim (sections 1(9), 3(2) and 9(2), 1973 Act). The effect of these provisions is to add a further year to the 6 year limitation period under section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 which runs from the first claim date (section...
To continue reading
Request your trial