When considering a certificate of appropriate alternative development (CAAD) to assess compensation for compulsory purchase under section 14 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, it is for the local planning authority to decide what evidential weight to give CAAD applications or decisions relating to other land.
The Supreme Court has considered the effect of an application and grant of a CAAD in Secretary of State for Transport v Curzon Park Ltd and others [2023] UKSC 30.
The case concerned four neighbouring sites which were compulsorily purchased by the SST in 2018 to construct a railway terminus for HS2. The respondents were the owners of the sites each of whom had been granted a CAAD in relation to their respective sites.
In determining the applications Birmingham City Council considered each application in isolation rejecting the SSTs contention that the cumulative impact of all the applications should be considered otherwise the respondents were likely to be over-compensated.
On the SSTs appeal the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decided that it was for the local authority, as decision maker to decide what evidential weight to give to other CAAD applications or decisions.
The Court of Appeal decided that the decision maker was not entitled to take into account other CAAD applications or decisions. The SST appealed again.
The Supreme Court unanimously restored the Upper Tribunal decision. The question is whether at the valuation date planning permission could reasonably be expected to be granted on the assumptions in section 14(5) of the 1961 Act but otherwise in the circumstances known in the market at the time.
This was the only limitation and would include planning applications and permissions and CAAD applications or decisions made in relation to other land at the valuation date which may impact on the proposal in question.
A CAAD application or decision is not equivalent to an application or permission for planning in the real world.
The CAAD regime exists only to assist with the assessment of value of land in the counterfactual cancelled scheme world for determining compensation payable although the evidence submitted with a CAAD application can be relied upon to the extent it casts light on the circumstances known to the market at the valuation date.
While neither a CAAD application nor a decision to grant one are material planning considerations the fact or pattern of such applications or decisions may provide evidence of market actors responding to market circumstances at the valuation date in the counterfactual cancelled scheme world. How this is assessed is for the local planning authority to decide.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
