Batchelor v Kent County Council: CA 1989

The Council had compulsorily acquired land for highway improvement. It was within an area scheduled for residential development. Outline permission for development of neighbouring land had been granted but the development could not proceed until the road improvements, including the construction of a roundabout, had been carried out. The compulsorily acquired plot was the site of the roundabout. The Lands Tribunal assessed the compensation for the plot on the basis that it was the key to the residential development.
Held: The value of the plot had to be assessed by reference to its value prior to the acquisition and disregarding any increase in value attributable to the residential development. On the facts, however, there was no ground for holding that the tribunal had failed to have regard to the principle that any such increase in value had to be disregarded. Mann LJ considered also the section 5 rule (3) disregard and the meaning of the statutory words ‘special suitability’. The tribunal had found that ‘the most suitable access to the land to the south [ie. part of the land to be residentially developed] is that which has been formed on the order land [ie. the roundabout]’, but found also ‘it was unable to find that the order land would have been the only access to the land to the south’. Those findings were ‘decisive against a finding of special suitability’: ‘The order land may have been the most suitable land for access to the south but it was not specially suitable for that purpose. Most suitable does not correspond with specially suitable.’ and ‘If a premium value is ‘entirely due to the scheme underlying the acquisition’ then it must be disregarded. If it was pre-existent to the [scheme] it must in my judgment be regarded. To ignore the pre-existent value would be to expropriate it without compensation and would be to contravene the fundamental principle of equivalence.’
Mann LJ: ‘The [Point Gourde] principle enjoins the tribunal to ignore ‘an increase in value which is entirely due to the scheme underlying the acquisition’. The scheme underlying the acquisition was here stated by the tribunal to be ‘the construction of the roundabout and the associated roadworks’. The roundabout and associated works when they were completed removed the inhibition imposed by…the planning permission…the removal of the inhibition was a removal naturally to be desired by the landowners whose development was otherwise curtailed. The critical question as it seems to me, is whether the scheme underlying the acquisition as found, did enhance the value of the order land. The question is a question of fact. If there were found to be an enhancement, its dimension was a matter of valuation. It is to be observed, and critically so, that the tribunal must search for an increase in value ‘entirely due to the scheme.
The Pointe Gourde principle cannot diminish a pre-scheme value. Was there a particular value prior to the scheme underlying the acquisition? As it seems to me the tribunal found that there was.’


Mann LJ


[1992] 1 EGLR 217, (1990) 59 PandCR 357


England and Wales


CitedStokes v Cambridge Corporation LT 1961
The tribunal considered case concerned 5.1 ha of land with an assumption of planning permission for industrial development under Planning legislation. There was only one possible access over adjoining land in different ownership.
Held: When . .
CitedPointe Gourde Quarrying and Transport Co Ltd v Sub-Intendant of Crown Lands PC 29-Jul-1947
Under a wartime agreement in 1941 the UK government agreed to lease to the US Government land in Trinidad on which the US could establish a naval base. To do this the Crown acquired the Pointe Gourde land for its limestone quarry which would be used . .

Cited by:

CitedC F and M G Roberts v South Gloucestershire District Council LT 31-Dec-1994
LT COMPENSATION – Compulsory purchase of land for the construction of a road – value – assumed planning permission – value of minerals – planning permission for a commercial minerals operation not granted or to . .
CitedWaters and others v Welsh Development Agency HL 29-Apr-2004
Land was to be compulsorily purchased. A large development required the land to be used to create a nature reserve. The question was how and if at all the value of the overall scheme should be considered when assessing the compensation for this . .
CitedLlanelec Precision Engineering Co Ltd v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council LT 3-Aug-2000
. .
CitedWards Construction (Medway) Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc and Another CA 1-Jul-1994
Land with an existing use value of andpound;3,000 had been valued by the Lands Tribunal for purchase at andpound;2.15m.
Held: The ransom value decision by the Lands Tribunal was not wrong in law and was upheld. It was necessary to value the . .
CitedJ A Pye (Oxford) Limited v Kingswood Borough Council CA 6-Apr-1998
The purchase of land which was to form the last part of a development was to be valued without taking account of the enhanced value which would be attributed to the much larger scheme of development. To ascertain what is to be ignored by the valuer . .
CitedStar Energy Weald Basin Ltd and Another v Bocardo Sa SC 28-Jul-2010
The defendant had obtained a licence to extract oil from its land. In order to do so it had to drill out and deep under the Bocardo’s land. No damage at all was caused to B’s land at or near the surface. B claimed in trespass for damages. It now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.188856