Compensation – Valuation – Compensation claim in respect of pipe-laying works on claimant’s land – Whether works preventing implementation of planning permission for residential development such that compensation payable for consequent depreciation in value of land – Whether residential development capable of being carried out pursuant to permission – Whether permission properly characterised as full permission or lapsed outline permission – Whether permitting erection of dwellings – Preliminary issue determined The claimant claimed compensation, under the Water Industry Act 1991, in respect of works carried out by the compensating authority on its land at Trearddur Bay, Anglesey, between July and September 2004 for the purpose of laying a new sewer pipeline. The claimant contended that the works prevented full implementation of a planning permission for residential development on its land, such that it was entitled to recover £3.37m for depreciation in the value of the land and consequential losses. The compensating authority contended that there had been no depreciation in value since no development could have been carried out under the planning permission at the time of the works. The planning permission in question had been granted by the borough council in 1983 pursuant to an application made on their standard form. A box had been ticked on that form to indicate that a full permission was sought. Permission was granted for “Layout and detailed plans for the erection of 45 dwellings and layout for a further 38 plots” in accordance with the 1983 planning application and the plans submitted with it. The permission contained a condition requiring a detailed layout plan to be submitted to, and approved by, the council in respect of the latter part of the development. The compensating authority contended that the permission was outline only, so far as it related to the 38 plots on the part of the land principally affected by the pipeline works, and was consequently subject to a deemed statutory condition, under section 42 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, that an application for approval of reserved matters had to be made within three years. The authority submitted that since no reserved matters application had been made, the outline permission had lapsed and no development could be carried out. The respondent contended that a full permission had been granted and that it was entitled to erect the 38 dwellings so long as it first complied with the condition requiring submission of a detailed layout plan. A preliminary issue was tried as to the nature of the planning permission. Decision: The preliminary issue was determined accordingly. The 1983 planning permission was not a hybrid permission granting full permission for 45 of the dwellings and outline permission for the other 38 dwellings. An outline permission could be granted only on an outline application: R v Flintshire County Council, ex parte Somerfield Stores Ltd [1998] PLCR 336; [1998] EGCS 53 and R v Newbury District Council, ex parte Chieveley Parish Council [1997] JPL 1137; [1997] EGCS 105 applied. The 1983 application had stated that it was not an application for outline planning permission but was an application for full permission. It did not purport to be, and was not, an application for outline permission in relation to the 38 houses. Consequently, the permission granted on that application was not an outline permission. The conclusion that the council were not purporting to grant a hybrid permission was supported by the conditions attached to the permission: these included a condition requiring development to be commenced within five years, pursuant to the requirements of section 41 of the 1971 Act in respect of full planning permission, but no standard outline conditions relating to reserved matters. Moreover, outline planning permission could be granted only for the erection of a building: see Article 2(1) of the Town and Country General Development Order 1977. The description of the development in the application drew a distinction between 45 dwellings on the one hand and 38 individual plots on the other. The latter were shown as plots with the roads and sewers serving them. The purpose of seeking a permission for the layout of those plots, rather than for the erection dwellings on them, was to show the layout of the entire development, so that the 45 houses could be judged to be acceptable in the context of the further development that the applicant hoped eventually to carry out, and to enable the roads and sewers to be laid. The application did not, in terms, seek permission for the houses to be erected on the 38 plots, or state that outline permission was sought for these. In granting permission, the council had maintained the distinction between the 45 dwellings and the 38 individual plots. In respect of the latter, permission was granted only for the layout, not for the erection of dwellings. Although the claimant had succeeded in establishing that there was a full planning permission, not an outline permission, the outcome was adverse to it so far as the permission was for the layout of the houses only and not their erection. Vincent Fraser QC (instructed by Brabners Chaffe Street LLP, of Liverpool) appeared for the claimant; Roger Lancaster (instructed by Aaron & Partners LLP, of Chester) appeared for the compensation authority. Sally Dobson, barrister
Eaden Homes Ltd v Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water)
Compensation – Valuation – Compensation claim in respect of pipe-laying works on claimant’s land – Whether works preventing implementation of planning permission for residential development such that compensation payable for consequent depreciation in value of land – Whether residential development capable of being carried out pursuant to permission – Whether permission properly characterised as full permission or lapsed outline permission – Whether permitting erection of dwellings – Preliminary issue determined
The claimant claimed compensation, under the Water Industry Act 1991, in respect of works carried out by the compensating authority on its land at Trearddur Bay, Anglesey, between July and September 2004 for the purpose of laying a new sewer pipeline. The claimant contended that the works prevented full implementation of a planning permission for residential development on its land, such that it was entitled to recover £3.37m for depreciation in the value of the land and consequential losses. The compensating authority contended that there had been no depreciation in value since no development could have been carried out under the planning permission at the time of the works.
The planning permission in question had been granted by the borough council in 1983 pursuant to an application made on their standard form. A box had been ticked on that form to indicate that a full permission was sought. Permission was granted for “Layout and detailed plans for the erection of 45 dwellings and layout for a further 38 plots” in accordance with the 1983 planning application and the plans submitted with it. The permission contained a condition requiring a detailed layout plan to be submitted to, and approved by, the council in respect of the latter part of the development.
The compensating authority contended that the permission was outline only, so far as it related to the 38 plots on the part of the land principally affected by the pipeline works, and was consequently subject to a deemed statutory condition, under section 42 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, that an application for approval of reserved matters had to be made within three years. The authority submitted that since no reserved matters application had been made, the outline permission had lapsed and no development could be carried out. The respondent contended that a full permission had been granted and that it was entitled to erect the 38 dwellings so long as it first complied with the condition requiring submission of a detailed layout plan. A preliminary issue was tried as to the nature of the planning permission.
Decision: The preliminary issue was determined accordingly.
The 1983 planning permission was not a hybrid permission granting full permission for 45 of the dwellings and outline permission for the other 38 dwellings. An outline permission could be granted only on an outline application: R v Flintshire County Council, ex parte Somerfield Stores Ltd [1998] PLCR 336; [1998] EGCS 53 and R v Newbury District Council, ex parte Chieveley Parish Council [1997] JPL 1137; [1997] EGCS 105 applied. The 1983 application had stated that it was not an application for outline planning permission but was an application for full permission. It did not purport to be, and was not, an application for outline permission in relation to the 38 houses. Consequently, the permission granted on that application was not an outline permission. The conclusion that the council were not purporting to grant a hybrid permission was supported by the conditions attached to the permission: these included a condition requiring development to be commenced within five years, pursuant to the requirements of section 41 of the 1971 Act in respect of full planning permission, but no standard outline conditions relating to reserved matters.
Moreover, outline planning permission could be granted only for the erection of a building: see Article 2(1) of the Town and Country General Development Order 1977. The description of the development in the application drew a distinction between 45 dwellings on the one hand and 38 individual plots on the other. The latter were shown as plots with the roads and sewers serving them. The purpose of seeking a permission for the layout of those plots, rather than for the erection dwellings on them, was to show the layout of the entire development, so that the 45 houses could be judged to be acceptable in the context of the further development that the applicant hoped eventually to carry out, and to enable the roads and sewers to be laid. The application did not, in terms, seek permission for the houses to be erected on the 38 plots, or state that outline permission was sought for these. In granting permission, the council had maintained the distinction between the 45 dwellings and the 38 individual plots. In respect of the latter, permission was granted only for the layout, not for the erection of dwellings.
Although the claimant had succeeded in establishing that there was a full planning permission, not an outline permission, the outcome was adverse to it so far as the permission was for the layout of the houses only and not their erection.
Vincent Fraser QC (instructed by Brabners Chaffe Street LLP, of Liverpool) appeared for the claimant; Roger Lancaster (instructed by Aaron & Partners LLP, of Chester) appeared for the compensation authority.
Sally Dobson, barrister