Agricultural land — Proposal to divide unit into several parcels — General Development Order 1977 — Article 4 direction — Planning applications refused for agricultural buildings — Claim for compensation — Claim for $160,000 — Authority’s valuer speaks to £17,600 on one basis and nil loss on another — Whether planning permission refused for Class VI permitted development — Whether valuation may refer to aggregate of values — No evidence before tribunal on “after” value — Award of £135,450
The claimant owns 70.4 acres of agricultural land, the “reference land”, at New Lodge Estate, Fifield, Berkshire. He purchased it in 1983 as part of a larger area at a price of about £1,460 per acre. The reference land is old parkland adjoining Windsor Forest with views across the River Thames to Windsor Castle. In 1985 the claimant decided to sell the reference land in 15 parcels of between one and ten acres each. This prompted Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council, the local planning authority, to make a direction under article 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977; the direction was confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Environment in July 1985.
In 1986 the claimant made 15 planning applications in respect of each parcel he was seeking to sell; each application was for agricultural buildings. All the applications were refused by the local planning authority in October 1986. Following the planning refusals the claimant sold 69.48 acres of the reference land for prices between £1,750 and £1,789. He submitted a claim for compensation under sections 164 – 165 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in respect of the loss and damage attributable to the refusal of planning permission.
For the claimant evidence was given by Mr Ralph Wade FRICS that the reference land had a value of £280,000 with the benefit of Class VI permitted development had there been no article 4 direction. He then valued the land, subject to the article 4 direction and in the light of the refusal of planning permission, on the basis that it was to be sold in 15 parcels, at £120,000: the difference between the two values of £160,000 represented the loss or damage due to the article 4 direction. For the local planning authority, Mr Philip Pocock FRICS FAAV spoke to two valuations. The first valuation assumed the reference land would have been sold in lots on the valuation date in October 1986 at £3,500 per acre, made allowance for the costs of water supply and access to each parcel, and gave a figure of loss to the claimant of £17,600. The second valuation assumed the reference land would have been sold as one parcel at £2,000 per acre and there would have been no loss. The second valuation supported a legal submission that compensation under section 165 of the 1971 Act was for a refusal of planning permission for Class VI agricultural development in respect of the entirety of the reference land.
Held Class VI development refers to agriculture and not to the agricultural unit: there is no legal impediment to a valuation of the reference land in parcels. As there was no evidence of the “after value” that could be accepted, the tribunal valued the reference land as 15 parcels. An allowance of £250 per acre was made to reflect the costs of water supply and access and deducted from the “before value” of £280,000; the “after value” was based on a value of £2,000 per acre. The sum awarded as compensation was therefore £135,450.
Robert Fookes (instructed by Shoosmiths & Harrison, of Reading) appeared for the claimant; and Geoffrey Stephenson (instructed by the borough secretary, Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council) appeared for the local planning authority.