The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in Pattle v Secretary of State for Transport [2009] UKUT 141 (LC); [2009] PLSCS 304 (see PP 2009/110) had to consider compensation payable for land that was compulsorily purchased for the Channel Tunnel rail link. The tribunal’s decision in Matharu v Secretary of State for Transport [2009] UKUT 165 (LC); [2009] PLSCS 316 illustrates a different aspect of compulsory land acquisition for the purpose of the same rail link. In Matharu, the claimants owned the freehold interest in land, the subsoil of which was required for a twin-bore single-track underground tunnel between London St Pancras station and Ebbsfleet. The acquiring authority was obliged to grant a lease of the railway and the tunnels to the nominated operator, and therefore needed to acquire the freehold interest.
Notices to treat and notices of entry were served in 2001. That section of the rail link opened in 2007, but references were made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to determine the compensation payable. The relevant statutory provisions were r 2 (value of the land taken) and r 6 (disturbance) of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961.
Section 7 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 was also relevant in respect of severance and injurious affection, given that the claimants would retain land. This provides that the assessment of compensation for the land is to have regard not only to the value of the land to be purchased but also to the damage, if any, sustained by the owner by reason of the severing of the land purchased from other of its land or otherwise by injuriously affecting that other land.
Expert valuation evidence was given on behalf of the secretary of state. The valuer had more than 35 years’ experience of compulsory purchase and compensation, including numerous motorway and trunk road schemes and railway and airport projects .
In respect of compensation under r 2, he considered that there was no open market value basis for a “tube” of subsoil because there would be no demand except from a body possessing compulsory purchase powers. It followed that a nominal amount only should be payable. The amount that had been adopted previously for the Channel Tunnel rail link project was £50 regardless of the length, volume and depth of the interest acquired.
As for r 6, the valuer was unaware of any costs or losses arising from the acquisition and the amount payable in respect of disturbance should therefore be nil. On the question of severance and injurious affection, he took the view that although complaints had been made concerning ground-borne noise and/or vibration arising from the passage of the trains below ground, the effects were barely discernible and far below the level at which any diminution in value of the retained land would arise. Accordingly, compensation under this head of claim should also be nil.
The tribunal accepted his valuation evidence, and determined that the compensation payable in respect of each of the 147 subsoil interests was £50.
John Martin is a freelance writer