Compulsory purchase of land for highway improvement — Improvement in connection with large development area — Lands Tribunal awarded £1.24m as ransom value — Whether scheme for purposes of Pointe Gourde principle properly identified by tribunal — Whether ransom value disregarded by rule (3) — Award remitted to tribunal to identify scheme
The respondents were the owners of a strip of agricultural land of 1.605 hectares adjoining Thorley Lane, Bishop’s Stortford. The land was acquired under a compulsory purchase order, and possession was taken in 1978 for the realignment and improvement of Thorley Lane. A large development lay to the north of the reference land and outline planning permission was granted in 1974 for the comprehensive development of this area, known as the Thorley Development Area. The development was coordinated by the district council but no condition was attached to the permission requiring the improvement of Thorley Lane. In 1973 the county council decided that no major access on to the lane would be allowed until it had been improved.
The Lands Tribunal (C R Mallett Esq FRICS) ([1988] 2 EGLR 213) awarded the sum of £1.24m claimed by the respondents and rejected the agricultural value of £5,500 contended for by the appellant acquiring authority, on the basis that the land had a ransom value as, in the absence of a scheme, planning permission for the development land would have been granted subject to conditions requiring the improvement of the lane. The authority appealed, submitting that the tribunal had not observed the Pointe Gourde principle or properly applied rule (3) of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. The first limb of this rule directs that “the special suitability or adaptability of the land for any purpose shall not be taken into account if that purpose is a purpose to which it could be applied only in pursuance of statutory powers”. It was argued that the closure of certain parts of the lane could be achieved only by statutory powers.
Held The appeal was allowed in part and the award remitted to the Lands Tribunal.
1. It was agreed that the tribunal had to make a determination as to the identity of the scheme for the purposes of the Pointe Gourde principle. It is conventionally convenient to devise in the imagination what would have happened had there been no scheme. This can then be contrasted with what has occurred given the presence of the scheme. The tribunal had made no finding as to what the scheme was; it was not possible to say, as the tribunal had done, that in the imagined no-acquisition world the land had a value as a ransom strip unless one identified the scheme. The factual question had not been addressed and the award was remitted on this ground.
2. Rule (3) did not apply, as private developers can and do construct roads upon their land and may be authorised to stop up existing highways under section 209 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. As the statutory closure was not on the reference land, the rule did not apply.
Wilson v Liverpool Corporation
[1971] 1 WLR 302 followed.
Michael Rich QC and John Howell (instructed by the solicitor to the Hertfordshire County Council) appeared for the appellant; and Matthew Horton QC and Sebastian Head (instructed by Berwin Leighton) appeared for the respondents.
