J S Bloor (Wilmslow) Ltd v Homes and Communities Agency: CA 22 May 2015

The land owner challenged the amount awarded on the compulsory purchase of land. Although agricultural, it had substantial hope value with possible residential development.
Held: The assessment of compensation should be remitted to the Upper Tribunal ‘to be decided without regard to the scheme of development as defined in this judgment’
Patten LJ summarised the effect of the ‘cancellation assumption’ in the present case: ‘It operates to limit the scope of any assumed planning permission to a counter-factual scenario in which the KBP scheme has been cancelled in respect of, but only in respect of, the reference land: ie as if the landowner had succeeded at the public inquiry in persuading the Inspector to omit Plots 13 and 14 from the CPO. There is no requirement to assume that the CPO would not have gone ahead in respect of the remainder of the order land or that the development of the KBP would not have proceeded . . ‘
Patten LJ said: ‘In my view, the [Upper Tribunal] was right to hold that the planning status of the reference land did have to be modified for the purposes of valuation in accordance with the ‘no KBP universe’ methodology. But it was wrong to do so by simply downgrading the strict application of the existing and emerging development plan but otherwise leaving the allocation of the land for development in place. What it should have done was to consider the planning potential of the reference land without regard to the development scheme and its underlying policies and therefore its effect on value. In that no scheme world it should have examined what wider no scheme specific policies (including but not necessarily limited to PPG3) would have applied to a planning application at the valuation date had there been no KBP and so struck a fair balance between the public interest and those of the claimant in relation to the valuation of the reference land. The assumption relied on in both parties’ submissions that policy EC/6 and developing policy EC/7 continued to apply was based on a wrong application of section 6(1) and the valuation calculated on that basis must be set aside.’


Jackson, Patten, Sales LJJ


[2015] EWCA Civ 540




England and Wales


CitedTransport for London (London Underground Ltd) v Spirerose Ltd HL 30-Jul-2009
Compulsory Purchase Compensation – Land As it Is
The House considered the basis of calculation of compensation on the compulsory purchase of land without planning permission, but where permission would probably be granted. The appellant challenged the decision which had treated the probability as . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromHomes and Communities Agency v JS Bloor (Wilmslow) Ltd SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to the sums awarded on compulsory acquisition of grazing land, but which land had a substantial hope value for residential development.
Held: The tribunal’s application of these difficult provisions to the complex facts of this case . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.547070