Compulsory purchase – Compensation – Procedure – Applicant acquiring authority compulsorily purchasing land where owners unknown – Applicant applying for direction from tribunal to pay compensation into court – Whether compensation code requiring applicant to serve notice to treat where unable to identify owner to comply with statutory procedural requirements – Application granted
The applicant acquiring authority was entitled by The Metropolitan Borough of Stockport (Hazel Grove (A6) to Manchester Airport A555 Classified Road) Compulsory Purchase Order 2013, to acquire land at Hazel Grove, Stockport, to facilitate the provision of a new relief road linking the A6 to Manchester Airport.
It had been unable to identify the owners of five small parcels of land varying in size from 1 sq m to 1,781 sq m along the route of the road but entered the land in March 2015 and completed the construction of the new road by 2018.
The applicant obtained a determination from the tribunal under schedule 2 to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 of the amount of compensation payable for each of the five parcels of land. The final step before completing its acquisition was to pay that compensation into court. It would then be lawful to execute a deed poll vesting in itself absolutely all the estate and interests in the land belonging to the unknown owners.
The applicant tried to pay the compensation into court, but the deposit request form published by the Court Funds Office required it to state the date on which notice to treat was given. As no such notice had been given in relation to any of the five parcels of land, the office declined to accept the deposits on the basis that the statutory procedural requirements had not been complied with.
The applicant applied to the tribunal for a further direction to allow the deposits to be made.
Held: The application was granted.
(1) The Acquisition of Land Act 1981 prescribed the procedure for the compulsory purchase of land authorised by a compulsory purchase order (CPO). Where the purchase was by an authority other than a minister, a three- stage procedure was laid down by section 2(2): the CPO had to be made by the acquiring authority, submitted to a confirming authority and confirmed in accordance with Part 2 of the 1981 Act.
Before submitting a CPO for confirmation, an acquiring authority was required to publicise it to those with an interest in the land to be acquired and to explain what it involved and how it might be objected to. Notices had to be published in local newspapers (section 11) and given individually to every “qualifying person” in relation to the land. The expression “qualifying person” was defined in section 12(2) as including an owner, lessee, tenant or occupier of the land. There was no exception for qualifying persons whose identity was unknown.
(2) Section 6(4) of the 1981 Act made specific provision for service on unknown owners. The statutory procedure required every owner to be given notice both before and after confirmation of a CPO took place. Where the acquiring authority was satisfied that reasonable inquiry had been made and that it was not practicable to ascertain the name or address of an owner, the necessary notices might be given to anyone on the land or by leaving it on or near the land. Notice of the confirmed CPO also had to be given on or near the land. Each of those steps was taken in this case in respect of each of the five parcels of land.
Section 5 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 dealt with “Notice to treat and untraced owners”. Schedule 2 related to absent or untraced owners. In section 5(1), the requirement to give a notice to treat to persons interested in the land applied only so far as such persons were “known to the acquiring authority after making diligent inquiry”. There was therefore no requirement to give notice to such persons if they were not known to the acquiring authority after it had made diligent inquiry. That qualification was a critical difference between the procedures for securing a CPO under the 1981 Act and those concerned with the completion of acquisition under the 1965 Act.
It followed that no notice to treat was required to be served on an owner of land whose identity was unknown, nor had any such notice to be posted on or near the land. The purpose of a notice to treat was to invite the owner to participate in a negotiation. If the owner of the land had not come forward during the CPO confirmation process, despite the steps taken to bring it to their attention, and if they had not been identified despite the “diligent inquiry” required by section 5(1), such an invitation would be an empty gesture.
(3) Paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the 1965 Act conferred jurisdiction on the tribunal to determine compensation payable to those falling within sub-paragraphs (a) (a reminder that the compensation code pre-dated modern methods of communication) and (b) (much more commonly used and required the tribunal to be satisfied that the owner of the land could not be found after diligent inquiry had been made). It was for the tribunal to satisfy itself that those prior conditions were satisfied and that it had jurisdiction.
Therefore, the tribunal’s standard “absent owner” form of reference required an acquiring authority to provide a detailed list of steps taken to locate the owner of the land, including when they were taken and their outcome. That information was provided by the applicant in the present case and was sufficient to satisfy the tribunal that it should proceed to value the compensation payable for each of the five parcels of land concerned. Having done so, the tribunal’s valuations were issued to the applicant.
(4) Once a valuation had been completed and the amount of compensation ascertained, the only further steps which remained to be taken were administrative. The only passport an acquiring authority required to enable it to complete its acquisition was the tribunal’s valuation. Once it had that document, the authority was entitled under paragraph 2(1) to pay the compensation into court. Having done so, it had a right under paragraph 2(2) to execute the necessary deed poll, with the consequences identified in paragraph 2(3).
It followed that the compensation code did not require an authority to serve notice to treat where it was unable to identify the owner of land subject to compulsory purchase.
Michael Humphries KC (instructed by TLT LLP) appeared for the applicant The respondents did not appear and were not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
Click here to read a transcript of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council v Unknown Owners of Land at Old Mill Lane, Hazel Grove, Stockport