September 30

Real property

first_img (1) Stewart John Pattle (2) Craig Pattle v Secretary of State for Transport: UT (Lands) (Judge Huskinson, Andrew Trott): 21 July 2009 Simon Pickles, Gerard van Tonder (instructed by Kingsley Smith) for the claimants; Guy Roots QC (instructed by Ashurst) for the defendant. The tribunal was required to determine as a preliminary issue whether the claimants (P) were entitled, as part of their claim for compensation for the compulsory acquisition of a part of an industrial site that they owned, to claim compensation for a hypothetical loss of rents from units on the site. P had obtained outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the site by the demolition of existing units and the construction of new units. A condition of the grant was that no development could occur within a part of the site (the reference land), safeguarded for the construction of the Channel tunnel rail link (CTRL) pursuant to an order of the defendant secretary of state. P deferred the redevelopment, apparently because of the prospective acquisition of the reference land and the general blighting effects of the CTRL scheme, but leased the existing units. The reference land was later compulsorily acquired by the secretary of state. P claimed compensation for the value of the reference land and, under rule 6 of schedule 5 to the Land Compensation Act 1961, for losses allegedly sustained by them prior to the date of compulsory acquisition, by way of the lower value in rents actually obtained compared to the allegedly higher rents they would have received from a redevelopment of the site. The secretary of state contended that any deferment by P of a proposed redevelopment of the site had been because of blight in the area rather than because of the prospective acquisition of the reference land. The secretary of state further argued that the claim for lost rents was excluded under rule 6 because it was directly based on the value of the land and because a claim for lost rents could not be pursued in respect of an assumed development which had not taken place. P contended that compensation for the value of the land for injurious affection or severance on the retained land should be assessed on the basis of the difference between the value of the land with planning permission for the units and the value of land with planning permission for fewer units, apportioned between the acquired land and the retained land. Held: (1) It was appropriate for the tribunal to determine the preliminary issue upon the basis that P might be able to prove that the deferment of their redevelopment on the site was reasonably attributable to the prospective acquisition of the reference land. As such it had been agreed by P and the secretary of state that the tribunal was not concerned with questions of causation, remoteness or reasonableness. (2) In relation to a claim by a person with a compensatable interest, compensation under rule 6 of schedule 5 was not limited to loss to occupiers, nor was it limited to claims for costs or expenses, and it extended to any loss attributable to the compulsory acquisition, subject only to the ordinary principles of causation and remoteness, Wrexham Maelor BC v MacDougall [1995] 69 P & CR 109 CA (Civ Div) applied. Further, it was clear that a claim under rule 6 of schedule 5 could extend to losses reasonably attributable not merely to the actual acquisition of the land but to the prospective acquisition of the land, Director of Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd [1995] 2 AC 111 PC (HK) applied. Rule 6 of schedule 5 required that the compensation claimed for was not directly based on the ‘value of land’. ‘Value of land’ in rule 6 of schedule 5 was to be ascribed the meaning given to value of land in rule 2 of schedule 5 and it could not be said that a claim for rents lost when the prospective acquisition was known about but possession had not taken place was not a claim for a matter directly based on the value of land. While the fact that the alleged lost rents were mostly from land which had not been acquired and which had not potentially been subject to acquisition might make for difficulties of proof of causation for P, the tribunal was not concerned with questions of causation, remoteness or reasonableness. There was no reason in principle why the losses claimed under rule 6 of schedule 5 had to be capable of being proved to have been sustained on and only on the land ultimately acquired. Furthermore, there was no reason why P had to calculate their lost rents by reference to the land in its existing state so that the extra rents which P could have obtained from some obvious and minor refurbishment had to be disregarded or, therefore, why a potential redevelopment could not be taken into account. (3) It could not be said that the before and after valuation method should not be used as a matter of law in respect of calculating the compensation claimed by P. Such a method always produced a valuation that included the value of the land taken and any severance or injurious affection even if they were not identified separately in the valuation process, Hoveringham Gravels Ltd v Chiltern DC 76 LGR 533 CA (Civ Div) distinguished. Preliminary issue determined in favour of claimant.center_img Compensation – Compulsory purchase – Neighbouring land – Rental valuelast_img

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved.

Posted September 30, 2020 by admin in category "tpqdnzpma

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *