Compulsory purchase — Retained land damaged for development purposes — Whether the Bwllfa principle applicable — Whether alternative access available to unlock development possibility — Effect of the scheme
In 1973 0.555 acre of land was acquired from the claimants to form a spur for the M5 motorway. The acquired land formed part of some 19.28 acres which had development possibilities and the claimants alleged that the retained land was damaged for development purposes. They claimed £750,079 on the assumption that after the acquisition of the 0.555 acre there was no prospect of development; alternatively they claimed £726,647 if the Bwllfa principle was not applicable in relation to events that occurred subsequent to the date of severance. The acquiring authority supported a sum of £98,010 as the proper compensation, based upon the assumption that alternative means of access were available on the retained land so that it could have been developed.
A section 18 certificate for the land taken was issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment in February 1983. This stated that planning permission for residential development would have been available not sooner than January 1976 had there been no compulsory purchase. However, the claimants contended that despite this certificate their principal loss arose because of a lack of access to develop the retained land.
Held 1. The before-acquisition valuation: a section 18 certificate of appropriate alternative development relates only to the acquired land, but the matters of fact or judgment leading to the grant of the certificate may well be strong or decisive evidence in relation to adjoining land. It followed that planning permission could be assumed for both the land taken and the retained land, and on the evidence there would have been an access. If that is wrong then the same result is obtained by applying the Pointe Gourde principle and section 6 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 and disregarding the effect of the scheme.
2. The after-acquisition valuation: on the evidence, the possible access routes put forward by the acquiring authority were too remote to have any measurable influence on the value of the retained land.
3. Valuation problems: the method of valuing the land taken and the land retained as two separate interests is to be preferred, as this accords with rule (2) of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 and section 7 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; this allows the Stokes payment to be allowed for in determining any ransom payment for an access. The Bwllfa principle could not be applied to take into account subsequent events which had no bearing on the valuation as at the date of severance. The proper sum of compensation was therefore £726,647.
Abbey Homesteads Group Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport
(1982) 263 EG 983, 1095 and 264 EG 59, 151 followed.
Michael Barnes QC and John Male (instructed by Asshetons) appeared for the claimants and called RJ Challinor FRICS, EE Taylor FRICS FRTPI FRSA, W Sommerville and MM Dixon; Charles Fay (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the acquiring authority and called NJ Abernethy ARICS, A Cartwright, D Beardmore FRICS FRTPI and K A Burgess, chartered engineer.
