Where an interest in land is proposed to be acquired by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, section 17 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 enables both the acquiring authority and the owner of the interest to apply to the local planning authority (“LPA”) for what is known as a “certificate of appropriate alternative development” (“CAAD”).
The applicant is required to specify what classes of development, in addition to development for which the land is to be acquired, it considers would have been appropriate had there been no compulsory acquisition. The LPA must then issue a CAAD within a strict time limit, either in positive or negative form. The only purpose of the CAAD is to assist in the valuation of the interest, by providing the context in which it is to be valued. On the issue of a CAAD, a right of appeal lies (now) to the Upper Tribunal – which is required to approach the appeal afresh, as if the application had been made to it in the first place.
In Haringay Meat Traders Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWHC 1744 (Admin); [2012] PLSCS 145, the court held that the application for a CAAD had to be considered in the same way as an application for planning permission. It fell to be decided on normal planning principles, with the consequential application of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
The appeal in Edwards v Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council [2014] UKUT 435 (LC); [2014] PLSCS 320 was against the issue of a negative CAAD by the LPA in respect of agricultural land that was to be compulsorily acquired for the purposes of highway construction. The specific issue for the Upper Tribunal was whether a scheme of tipping/land reclamation was an acceptable form of development on the land.
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, cancelled the negative CAAD and issued a positive one, holding that the LPA had erred. The correct approach was to consider the development plan first and to have national guidance – as a material consideration – in mind, if and where necessary, in any areas where there might be a conflict between plan policies, or the application of the relevant policies might be unclear. Applying that approach, the appellant’s proposed development was permissible under the development plan.
John Martin is a planning law consultant
