Hertfordshire County Council v Ozanne

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Mackay of Clashfern L.C.,Lord Keith of Kinkel,Lord Brightman,Lord Oliver,Lord Lowry
Judgment Date14 February 1991
Judgment citation (vLex)[1991] UKHL J0214-2
Date14 February 1991
CourtHouse of Lords
Hertfordshire County Council
(Appellants)
and
Ozanne and Others
(Respondents)

[1991] UKHL J0214-2

Lord Chancellor

Lord Keith of Kinkel

Lord Brightman

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton

Lord Lowry

House of Lords

Lord Mackay of Clashfern L.C.

My Lords,

1

This is an appeal by the Hertfordshire County Council ("the Council") from an order of the Court of Appeal dated 2 August 1989 allowing the Council's appeal from a decision of the Lands Tribunal given on 2 March 1988 whereby the Council was ordered to pay £1,240,000 in compensation to the respondents ("the claimants") but remitting to the said Tribunal the issue as to what was the scheme and any matters consequent upon the Tribunal's identification of it. This appeal proceeds by virtue of leave granted by this House on 14 December 1989.

2

The Council is the highway authority for the County of Hertford on whose behalf the East Hertfordshire District Council (Thorley Lane, Bishop's Stortford) Compulsory Purchase Order 1976 was made. That order authorised the compulsory purchase of 1.605 hectares of land adjoining the south side of Thorley Lane, Bishop's Stortford, the property of the claimants. The compulsory purchase order was made under section 214 of the Highways Act 1959 and section 22 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the purpose for which the purchase was authorised was described as (a) The construction of a new highway from the existing junction of Thorley Lane and the London-Norwich Trunk Road All to a point 123 metres west of the junction of Thorley Lane and Pynchbek at Bishop's Stortford in the district of East Hertfordshire in the County of Hertford; (b) the construction of new highways to connect the above mentioned highway with the existing road system at Bishops Avenue and Pynchbek at Bishop's Stortford; (c) the improvement of Thorley Lane and Oxcroft, Bishop's Stortford; and (d) the mitigation of the adverse effect which the existence or use of the new highways proposed to be constructed and improved at (a), (b) and (c) will have on the surroundings of the highways.

3

The claimants referred the question of the determination of the amount of compensation payable to them on the acquisition of the said land to the Lands Tribunal. The agricultural value of the said land was agreed to be £5,500. The claimants contended that the said land was a "ransom strip". They argued that the said land was required in order to enable residential development of a substantial area lying to the north of Thorley Lane which has been referred to conveniently as the Thorley Development Area. The claimants contended that, since the said land was necessary in order to enable the development of the Thorley Development Area to proceed, its value was considerably enhanced. By a calculation relating to the difference between the value of the Thorley Development Area if development was possible and compared with its value if no development was possible the claimants contended that the said land should be valued at £1,240.000, which appears a remarkably large figure for the amount of land in question, particularly as the planning permission granted in respect of the Thorley Development Area does not appear to have required as a condition that an access from the south of the development area should be made available over the said land. The Lands Tribunal determined compensation in the sum of £1,240,000 being Mr. Mallett's assessment of the value of the land under the terms of the relevant statutes.

4

The Council appealed to the Court of Appeal. There the Council had two arguments. The first was that the Lands Tribunal had not identified the scheme underlying the acquisition and, therefore, had failed to identify, as it was necessary to do, the extent to which the value of the said land was affected by the scheme. The Court of Appeal accepted this argument and remitted the case to the Lands Tribunal, on the issue as to what was the scheme, and any matters consequent upon the Tribunal's identification of the scheme. They ordered the costs in the Lands Tribunal to be costs in the cause and three-quarters of the Council's costs in the Court of Appeal to be paid by the respondents.

5

On the merits of this part of the case your Lordships are not called upon to adjudicate, although, of course, the question of costs in the Court of Appeal may be affected by the decision of this appeal to your Lordships' House.

6

The second argument advanced by the Council in the Court of Appeal was the only argument with which your Lordships are concerned. If it were to succeed, there would be no need for the case to go back to the Lands Tribunal and the compensation could be determined as the agricultural value of the said land.

7

The assessment of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the said land is subject to the provisions of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 which provides;

"Compensation in respect of any compulsory acquisition shall be assessed in accordance with the following rules:

  • "(1) No allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory:

  • "(2) The value of land shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be taken to be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise:

  • "(3) The special suitability or adaptability of the land for any purpose shall not be taken into account if that purpose is a purpose to which it could be applied only in pursuance of statutory powers, or for which there is no market apart from the special needs of a particular purchaser or the requirements of any authority possessing compulsory purchase powers: …"

8

The only provision relied upon by the Council before your Lordships is that:

"the special suitability or adaptability of the land for any purpose shall not be taken into account if that purpose is a purpose to which it could be applied only in pursuance of statutory powers".

9

The Counsel made it absolutely clear that, having considered the matter, the Council's argument was based solely on the passage I have just quoted.

10

The statutory powers which the Council say are relevant are the powers to stop-up an existing highway which are contained in sections 212 and 219 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. No order under either of these provisions had been produced and your Lordships were informed by Counsel for the Council that it has not established that any order was made.

11

The argument for the Council was that the said land could be used for the realignment of Thorley Lane only if there were a stopping-up order by the Secretary of State in respect of the existing Thorley Lane. It is accepted that no part of the existing Thorley Lane that could be affected by any such stopping-up order lies within the said land acquired from the claimants.

12

In elaborating their contention, the Council argued that it could not be disputed that the said land had an enhanced value over its agricultural value only in respect of its special suitability or adaptability for the purpose of providing a realignment of Thorley Lane. Further that in order that it should be used as a realignment of Thorley Lane it was necessary that part of Thorley Lane should be stopped-up and that, since Thorley Lane was a public highway, such stopping-up required the exercise of statutory powers. On this basis, it was claimed that the part of Rule 3 relied upon required the special suitability or adaptability of the said land for use for the realignment of Thorley Lane to be disregarded in assessing the compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the said land and, therefore, required the compensation to be determined at agricultural value, namely £5,500.

13

In support of this argument, the Council submitted that all compensation for compulsory acquisition is statutory; that the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919, in which Rule 3 was originally enacted and which is now consolidated in the Land Compensation Act 1961, was passed for the purpose of mitigating the evil of excessive compensation; that special suitability or adaptability of the land for a purpose for which there is no market apart from the special needs of a particular purchaser or requirements of any authority possessing compulsory purchase powers are dealt with in the part of Rule 3...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Waters and Others v Welsh Development Agency
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 29 Abril 2004
    ...That the purchase requiring use of statutory powers must relate to the subject land, not to other land ( Ozanne v Herts County Council [1991] 1 WLR 105, 110) (4) That the need for general forms of consent, such as planning permission or stopping-up orders, is not sufficient to bring the ru......
  • Decision Nº ACQ 153 2012. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 08-07-2014
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)
    • 8 Julio 2014
    ...for the Environment [2000] 2 AC 307 Graham v Newcastle upon Tyne City Council [2009] UKUT 281 (LC) Hertfordshire County Council v Ozanne [1991] 1 WLR 105 Inland Revenue Commissioners v Clay [1914] 3 KB 466 Potter v London Borough of Hillingdon [2010] UKUT 212 (LC) RMC (UK) Ltd v Greenwich L......
  • Waters et al. v. Welsh Development Agency, [2004] N.R. Uned. 118
    • Canada
    • 29 Abril 2004
    ...the purchase requiring use of statutory powers must relate to the subject land, not to other land ( Ozanne v. Herts County Council [1991] 1 W.L.R. 105, 110) (4) That the need for general forms of consent, such as planning permission or stopping-up orders, is not sufficient to bring the rule......
  • Palmerston North City Council v Hardiway Enterprises Ltd
    • New Zealand
    • Court of Appeal
    • 16 Abril 2015
    ...suitable” does not necessarily correspond with being specially suitable, it does in the circumstances here. 74 Like Batchelor, Hertforshire County Council v Ozanne ( Ozanne) involved s 5(3) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (UK) at a time when it was effectively the same as s 62(1)(d). 49 B......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT