Claimant becoming tenant of slaughterhouse – Council making order requiring discontinuance of use of premises as slaughterhouse – Amount of compensation payable – Whether Lands Tribunal reaching appropriate figure on evidence – Appeal allowed
In May 1988 the claimant became the tenant, under a 15-year lease, of a property known as 6 Market Square, Toddington, Bedfordshire. The property had for many years been used as a slaughterhouse, and that use had become the established use for the purposes of planning legislation. In September 1988 the claimant commenced business on the premises, slaughtering sheep by the “Halal” method.
In October 1988 the respondent council, as the local planning authority, made the South Bedfordshire District Council Discontinuance Order (No 1) 1988, in exercise of their powers under section 51 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (now section 102 of the 1990 Act), requiring the use of the premises as a slaughterhouse to be discontinued. The Secretary of State confirmed the order and it became effective in August 1989.
The claimant sought compensation under section 170 of the 1971 Act (now section 115 of the 1990 Act) on the ground that he had been disturbed in his enjoyment of the premises. The matter was referred to the Lands Tribunal, which determined the amount of compensation payable as £417,908. The claimant appealed by way of case stated, submitting that the tribunal had erred in: (i) applying a deduction of 25% in respect of wastage in determining the correct level of income per sheep from the sale of sheep skins; (ii) applying a deduction of 49% in respect of wastage in determining the correct level of income per sheep from the sale of sheep parts other than skins; and (iii) concluding that interest was not payable, under the law applicable prior to the enactment of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, on the compensation to be paid from the date of the discontinuance order to the date of payment.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
1. The tribunal had failed to take account of the whole of the relevant evidence when concluding that 25% was an appropriate figure to take as the proportion of unsaleable skins. Such a conclusion could not be reached upon the evidence, and, therefore, the tribunal had erred in law. Upon all the evidence before it, the tribunal ought to have concluded that the average price of £5 per skin took sufficient account of wastage, and that no further reduction was required.
2. The tribunal’s decision to reduce the income from “other parts” to a figure as low as £1 per sheep could not be justified upon the evidence, and was properly to be regarded as erroneous in law. A figure of £1.50 per sheep for other parts was to be adopted.
3. A general power to award interest had been conferred upon the tribunal by section 19A of the Arbitration Act 1950, to which the Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 (SI 1996/1022) had given effect: see Knibb v National Coal Board [1987] QB 906. In the instant case, there was no basis upon which a decision could properly be made to refuse to add interest to the amount of the compensation payment. The tribunal had decided to make a determination of the amount of compensation payable by discounting projected future income, and it had been required, as a necessary consequence, to award interest from 1989 until the date of the award.
The appellant appeared in person; Anthony Anderson QC and Michael Druce (instructed by the solicitor to South Bedfordshire District Council) appeared for the respondents.
Thomas Elliott, barrister