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 determining the value of land compulsorily acquired by the Corporation, the Tribunal allowed for the fact that the landowner would himself have had to pay the key value of other land in order to realise the development potential of his own, and it reduced the valuation of the order land accordingly.
Held: The Tribunal awarded compensation on the basis of its emerging development value. One of the considerations was the Tribunal’s finding that there was ‘an inducement to the owner of the brown [ransom] strip to sell it as access’, because development of the claimant’s land would expedite the rezoning of other land, held together with the access strip, from allotment to industrial use. The compensation payable for a development site, should be reduced by one third, representing the price which would have had to be paid to the owner of a strip of adjoining land, which held the key to access. One-third of the development value was taken (as a principle of valuation, not of law) was an appropriate test for the value of a ransom strip.
Mann LJ said: ‘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 . .
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 acquisition 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.’
(1961) 13 P and CR 77, (1961) 180 EG 839
England and Wales
Cited – Morgan Sindall Plc v Sawston Farms (Cambs) Ltd CA 3-Dec-1998
An option had been given for the purchase of land. The claimant challenged the value assigned on exercising the option. The landowner subsequently disclosed a right of way over the land.
Held: An expert’s valuation cannot be challenged if it . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Llanelec Precision Engineering Co Ltd v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council LT 3-Aug-2000
Cited – Snook v Somerset County Council LT 2-Apr-2004
Cited – Skupinski, Re Law of Property Act 1925 LT 30-Nov-2004
A covenant prevented new building other than for a garage. The owner proposed a three-car garage extension, but with a play-room above, for the applicant’s own use. The relevant property of the objector was not her own house, but consisted of a . .
Cited – Dutton and Another v Blaby District Council LT 17-May-2005
COMPENSATION – purchase notice – derelict land, formerly containing dwellinghouse – residential use abandoned – whether Third Schedule right to rebuild also abandoned – effect on value of absence of access for vehicles and to services. . .
Cited – Waters and others v Welsh Development Agency LT 3-Nov-2000
LT COMPENSATION – Compulsory purchase of land for purpose of nature reserve to compensate for loss of SSSI caused by Cardiff Bay Barrage – preliminary issues – Land Compensation Act 1961 s 5 rule (3) – Pointe . .
Cited – Waters and others v Welsh Development Agency CA 28-Jun-2002
The claimant’s land was subject to a compulsory purchase order to make land available for a scheme to make possible a much larger and more valuable scheme. He asserted that the compensation should be calculated in accordance with the value of the . .
Cited – Waters 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 . .
Cited – Mercury Communications Ltd v London and India Dock Investments Ltd 1993
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 February 2021; Ref: scu.180628