header-logo header-logo

Court of Appeal off balance

19 August 2009 / Evelyn Reid
Categories: Legal News , Property
printer mail-detail

Planning permission cannot be assumed for the purposes of valuation under the Land Compensation Act 1961, the House of Lords has ruled.

In the compulsory purchase case of Spirerose Ltd (in administration) v Transport for London (formerly London Underground Ltd) [2009] UKHL 44 the planning authority had “resolved” to grant permission but no valid certificate had been issued and the valuation was conducted without one. 

The law lords over-ruled the Court of Appeal decision that the compensation should reflect the market value based on the site with planning permission. 

Lord Walker said that to transform a “probability” of planning permission into a certainty on the footing that the civil standard of proof – the balance of probabilities – had been satisfied distorted the nature of the valuation exercise required by the 1961 Act. 

“The Court of Appeal had found that if planning permission would, on the balance of probabilities, be available then compensation should be assessed as if the land actually had the benefit of that consent,” says Malcolm Dowden, solicitor LexisPSL.

"However,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll