PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS IN ASSESSING COMPENSATION AFTER SPIREROSE

In one of the first cases after the House of Lords decision in Transport for London v Spirerose, the Lands Tribunal rejected a contention that the Pointe Gourde principle is still relevant to planning assumptions and reached important conclusions concerning the application of s16. The claimant's land was part of a larger area allocated in the development plan for housing but was intended for comprehensive mixed use development in accordance with more recent non-statutory policies. A CPO had been made to achieve comprehensive development. The Tribunal rejected a contention that s16(1) applied and held that, while s16(2)(a) applied, under s16(2)(b) it could not reasonably have been expected that planning permission would be granted for conversion of the existing building to 150 residential flats as proposed by the claimant. The Tribunal applied the cancellation assumption to s16(7), but concluded that s16(7) applied only to the claimant's land, not to other land in the same CPO. Under s14(3), the Tribunal concluded that there was a 40% chance of planning permission being granted after five years. Thomas Newell Ltd v Lancaster City Council [2010] UKUT 2 (LC); ACQ/338 & 422/2008.

The acquiring authority was represented by Guy Roots QC and Alex Booth instructed by Eversheds