The claimant had been granted a contractual right to use an airfield for arranging motor racing events. The planning consent was revoked, and compensation was claimed under s164 as ‘a person interested in the land’ which ‘is a section designed to compensate those who have incurred expenditure in reliance upon a permitted use only to find that they now face loss because the planning authority has revoked the permission. The subject matter of the compensation is not the compulsory acquisition of land, but the restriction upon use. Clearly some limit has to be placed upon the right to claim compensation because many a person may be affected by a change in the permitted use of land while not themselves being directly concerned to make any use of it. In the present case, for example, an omnibus company might have planned to lay on transport facilities to and from the airfield. In my opinion this section envisages as deserving of compensation a person who has a right in relation to the land, which right is adversely affected by the restriction on use.’ and ‘The Act refers to an ‘interest in land’ in other sections and to my mind the change to the less technical language of ‘interested in the land’ in section 164 is deliberate. I cannot see that it was dictated by the desire to achieve economy of language, for the saving between ‘a person interested in the land’ and ‘a person with an interest in the land’ is minimal. I therefore feel free to interpret the phrase without regard to technical terms. In the context of the Act, and section 164 in particular, a person who, like the appellants, has an enforceable right as against the owner to use the land in the way which has now been prohibited is ‘a person interested in the land’ within section 164.’
Judges:
Eveleigh LJ, Kerr LJ, Stephenson LJ
Citations:
[1983] QB 382
Statutes:
Town and Country Planning Act 1971 164
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Plimmer v Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Wellington PC 1884
(New Zealand) Mr Plimmer had occupied land under a revocable licence from the Corporation’s predecessor-in-title and at their request had made extensive improvements to it. He sought compensation when the land was to be vested in the defendant. The . .
Cited by:
Per incuriam – International Traders Ferry Ltd v Adur District Council CA 26-Feb-2004
The council served a stop notice. The company sought compensation. The council replied that the company had no legal or equitable interest in the land affected.
Held: The company had occupied the land under a licence. A contractual licensee on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.194773
