An appeal against a refusal to grant a certificate of appropriate alternative development under section 18 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 requires the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to determine what a reasonable planning authority correctly addressing both law and policy could have been expected to decide at the valuation date.
The Tribunal has undertaken such an exercise allowing an appeal in Bashir v Newham London Borough Council [2024] UKUT 146 (LC).
The case concerned the site that was formerly 117 and 119-21 High Street Stratford London E15, owned by Mohammed Bashir, until it was compulsorily acquired by the local authority under a Compulsory Purchase Order in 2014. At 117 was a three-storey 1930s building, with a café on the ground floor and residential accommodation above. At 119-121 was a two/three-storey building used as a nightclub with residential accommodation above. The two buildings were in a conservation area but neither was listed.
The CPO formed part of a wider acquisition of properties in the Sugar House Lane area to facilitate a mixed-use development call Strand East. The vesting date and the valuation date for the purposes of compensation was 14 November 2016.
Bashir made an application to Newham for a certificate of appropriate alternative development under section 17 of the 1961 Act in October 2022 to inform the level of compensation payable. Newham determined the application with a “nil” certificate.
Bashir appealed under section 18 of the 1961 Act which requires the Tribunal to consider afresh the matters to which the certificate relates as if the application had been made to the Tribunal in the first place. Bashir argued that but for the CPO he would have developed the land in conjunction with owners of land to the south, comprising a large industrial building and outbuildings. The CAAD application covered both sites to create a mixed-use development.
Newham certified, amongst other things, that it would not have granted planning permission for the development based on its predominantly residential use and low provision of commercial floor space, contrary to the local plan. Bashir subsequently modified the application and prepared alternative proposals and prior to the hearing Newham accepted that planning permission for some development would have been granted.
The Tribunal undertook a detailed consideration of the issues, alternative proposals and planning policies. The notional development was in conflict with specific planning policies. The appropriate alternative development for the site would be based on a variation of Newham’s version for wholly employment uses. The nil certificate was cancelled and the Tribunal substituted its own conclusions.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
