Lands Tribunal — Preliminary issue — Appeal by way of case stated — Tribunal concluding that cost of rebuilding certain walls must be taken into account in later valuations — Whether tribunal erred in law — Whether tribunal made decision of fact or of law — Appeal dismissed
The appellants, who had been refused planning permission on appeal to construct four self-contained flats in the roofs of certain three-storey blocks of flats they owned at Garden Close, West End Road, Ruislip, claimed compensation under section 169 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 from the respondent local planning authority on the basis that the proposed development was within para 3 of Schedule 8 to the Act. They referred their claim to the Lands Tribunal where, at the first of two preliminary hearings ([1986] 2 EGLR 216), the tribunal decided that the existing flats, which were constructed in five sections, could be regarded as one building.
At the second preliminary hearing ([1988] EGCS 136), the issue was whether the proposed development was within the 10% tolerance as provided by para 3 of the schedule. It was agreed that on the floor area of the proposed flats, a height of 8.84 ft was the maximum possible if the development was to be within the 10% tolerance; evidence was then adduced by the appellants to show the construction possibilities. However, the tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent compensating authority and decided that the proposed extensions would not receive building regulations approval and therefore could not be built at all unless the outer walls of the relevant sections of the building were first rebuilt. The tribunal concluded that “It necessarily follows that, in the assessment of compensation, the cost of rebuilding the outer walls would have to be ascertained and taken into account”.
The appellants appealed that decision by way of a case stated, contending that the tribunal’s conclusion was not correct in law; the preliminary issue before the tribunal was to determine a point of law and not questions of fact, which it had appeared to do. It was wrong to make determinations on the weight-bearing characteristics of the subsoil and outer walls in a reference on a preliminary point of law.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal was entitled to consider the question of the suitability of the outer walls; in the real world potential purchasers would carry out detailed investigations of that nature in considering the suitability of a building for extension in the manner proposed. The tribunal had not acted illegally or unlawfully; its conclusion that the costs of rebuilding the outer walls would have to be taken into account in determining the market value did not offend the law: see Inland Revenue Commissioners v Clay [1914] 3 KB 466 at p 475.
Barry Payton (instructed by Lynch Hall & Hornby, of Harrow) appeared for the appellants; and David Smith (instructed by the solicitor to Hillingdon London Borough Council) appeared for the respondent.