Blight notice — Counternotice — Strip of land — Whether server of notice held an interest in a hereditament or part of hereditament — Test of occupation of hereditament — Separate ownership and occupation — No separate entry in valuation list — Counternotice upheld
On July 4 1985 the claimant company served a blight notice on the compensating authority in respect of its freehold interest in a long narrow strip of land of 2.8 acres fronting a road at Howey, Powys. The authority served a counternotice on July 25 1985 objecting to the blight notice on, inter alia, the ground that under section 194(2)(f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 the interest of the claimants was not an interest qualifying for protection, in particular the subject land was not a hereditament as described in section 207 of the Act in respect of which the claimants were in occupation.
The strip of land was conveyed in 1920 together with an adjoining cottage, Crossways Cottage, and the whole remained in undivided ownership until 1973. There was no evidence that the strip of land was incorporated into the garden land of the cottage or otherwise so enjoyed. By a conveyance of July 1973, the subject strip of land and a small part of the cottage’s garden were conveyed to the claimants. There was no indication that the strip of land was ever included in the description of the hereditament relating to Crossways Cottage entered in the valuation list. The claimants contended that the strip of land and the cottage had previously been the subject of a single entry in the valuation list, as they were within the same curtilage or were contiguous and enjoyed together, and, as the valuation list had not been altered following the division of the land in 1973, the strip of land was still part of a hereditament.
Held It is clear from the authorities that the test of occupation for the purpose of the blight notice provisions is the same as for the purpose of rating; “occupation” therefore means in effect “rateable occupation”: see Ministry of Transport v Holland (1962) 9 RRC 228 (CA). The claimants were not in occupation of the whole or a substantial part of the hereditament entered in the valuation list as Crossways Cottage in July 1985. That was a question of fact having regard to the subject land and the cottage being in separate ownership and occupation on the relevant date. The fact that the two areas are adjoining is of little significance when regard is had to the separate ownership, occupation and use of the areas since 1973.
Gilbert (VO) v S Hickinbottom & Sons Ltd
[1956] 2 QB 40 applied.
There were no appearances; the determination was on written representations pursuant to rule 33A of the Lands Tribunal Rules 1975.
