Compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 also includes any damage sustained to the landowner’s retained land by the severing of the land purchased or other injurious affection.
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has considered this principle in Jones v Welsh Government [2024] UKUT 316 (LC); [2024] PLSCS 178.
The claim concerned Barnfield, a stone-built detached house near Abergavenny owned by the claimant. The house with stables and outbuildings sat in a plot of 2.6 acres formerly adjoining the unimproved A465 Heads of the Valleys Road from Abergavenny to Merthyr Tydfil. The main access to the property and a neighbouring property, Riverside, was along a private unsurfaced track to the old A465.
A compulsory purchase order was made in October 2014 to enable a major upgrade of the A465 from a three-lane carriageway to a dual carriageway over a five-mile stretch between Gilwern and Brynmawr. Possession of a small parcel of land at the property was taken in November 2017, which was the valuation date for the purposes of the claim.
The new dual carriageway was sited on a large embankment above the old road. The outer carriageway of the old road was repurposed as a gated private means of access to the property and Riverside and to gain access for maintenance. Documentation granting vehicular rights of access to Barnfield and Riverside were yet to be completed but both owners had keys to an exit gate.
Compensation was agreed for the land taken and for an easement and licence over parts of the property. The claim was for injurious affection and disturbance compensation.
Compensation for injurious affection under section 7 of the 1965 Act is usually assessed by determining the value of the retained land before severance disregarding the scheme and deducting from it the value of the retained land after severance Castlefield Properties Limited v National Highways Ltd [2023] UKUT 217 (LC).
The claimant submitted that the no-scheme world value of the property was £700,000 and that loss of value due to injurious affection was 4% or £28,000. The respondent argued that the value was £406,000 with no claim for injurious affection because there was no demonstrable loss of value to the property.
The tribunal considered that the respondent’s figure reflected the value of the property having regard to the existence of the scheme and that a purchaser would make a discount of £20,000 for the uncertainty of the new access at the valuation date. The claimant was also entitled to disturbance compensation for the cost of alternative livery provision and controlling Japanese knotweed introduced during construction.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
