Compulsory Purchase UpdateThe TheoryCharles CowapPenkridge, Staffs10 October 2011http://www.slideshare.net/cdcowap        ...
Theoretical framework      Classical    Utilitarianism          John Rawls’ Theory                                 of Just...
Planning Act 2008•    Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC)•    Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)•...
NSIPs•    Generating stations•    Cables and Pipes•    Gas storage•    Highways•    Airports•    Harbours•    Railways•   ...
The Application Process1. Pre-Application   2. IPC Acceptance                                         Charles Cowap       ...
3. Pre-Examination   4. Examination                                      Charles Cowap                                    ...
5. Decision   6. Post-decision                                 Charles Cowap                                           7  ...
Pre Application Stage       Proposals @ 10 October 2011   Number       Pre Application                   59       Pre Exam...
Charles Cowap          9MBA MRICS FAAV
Pre-application: Adviser•    Procedural advice•    Information re. Land tenure and occupation: 14 days deadline•    Consul...
2. Acceptance by IPC      •   IPC time period 28 days to accept or reject on          grounds of adequate consultation and...
Rookery South, BedfordshireWaste Combustion Plant, 65 MW,BedfordshireDecision due by 15 OctoberDeveloper’s Artist’s Impres...
3. Pre-Examination: Adviser•    Register as an ‘interested party’•    Make ‘relevant representation’•    Initial represent...
4. Examination: Adviser•    Preparation of detailed submissions: 28 days•    Preliminary hearings: procedures, requests fo...
5. Decision: AdviserNational PolicyStatements• Energy   –   Overarching   –   Renewables   –   Fossil fuels   –   Oil and ...
6. Post-decision•    Legal challenge                       Charles Cowap                       MBA MRICS16                ...
.. And what IPC does not cover:•    Infrastructure below the NSIP thresholds      – Lower voltage electricity lines      –...
IPC: All Change!•   Localism Bill     – Powers and procedures to be transferred to Major       Infrastructure Planning Uni...
Problems with tree roots  Wright v Horsham DC [2011] UKUT319 (LC)  • Compensation for refusal of TPO consent to fell 3 oak...
More tree rootsHalifax Insurance v Teignbridge DC[2011] UKUT 213 (LC)• TPO: Refusal of consent to thin   crown on tree in ...
Staying undergroundO’Donoghue & others v SoS for Transport [2011] UKUT 203 (LC)•   Subsoil beneath 26 properties in North ...
Bocardo v Star EnergyHigh Court 2008•   Surrey oilfield•   Bocardo Estate, Oxted•   Star Energy: Petroleum Production Lice...
Bocardo v Star Energy                 27.8.2008                 EWHC 1756 ChBocardo Estate                             Cha...
•   Trespass     – 17 years without being noticed     – Simple ownership of minerals does not convey right to enter       ...
Bocardo (2)The Court of Appeal  Supreme CourtCourt of Appeal• Supported finding that oil extraction was a trespass, even ...
And sticking with the Supreme CourtTransport for London v Spirerose Ltd [2009]UKHL 44• A lengthy case• Concluded that hope...
Ongoing effects of SpirerosePersimmon Homes (Midlands) Ltd v SoS for Transport [2009]UKUT126 (LC)• Four key questions   – ...
Ignoring the effects of the schemeAre we to imagine1. That ‘the scheme’ had never been                                    ...
The Creeping Impact of Localism on LandManagement•   DCLG Circular 06/04: Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel    Down Rule...
A final thoughtShould we be formulating a fourth head of claim?• Valuation of land taken• Severance and Injurious Affectio...
Pattle and Pattle v SoS for Transport [2009] UKUT 141 (LC)• Rule 6, s5, LCA 1961    – Compensation for Disturbance or any ...
Theory Concluded              But a quick plug for     THE FIRST RICS RURAL WEBINARThursday 13 October 2011, 9.00 am to 10...
Contact DetailsIn-house CPD programmes, professional-technical updates,   organisational consultancy, and more:          ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Rural Compulsory Purchase Update 2011

1,215 views

Published on

Compulsory Purchase Update for Recap series of lectures, Penkridge, Staffs 10 October 2011

Published in: Real Estate, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,215
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Rural Compulsory Purchase Update 2011

  1. 1. Compulsory Purchase UpdateThe TheoryCharles CowapPenkridge, Staffs10 October 2011http://www.slideshare.net/cdcowap Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  2. 2. Theoretical framework Classical Utilitarianism John Rawls’ Theory of Justice Pretium concept of compensation Barry Denyer-Green Compensatio concept of Market pricing compensation Sharing the Pain Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  3. 3. Planning Act 2008• Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC)• Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)• National Policy Statements• Development Consent Orders• Compulsory Acquisition Powers Charles Cowap 3 MBA MRICS FAAV
  4. 4. NSIPs• Generating stations• Cables and Pipes• Gas storage• Highways• Airports• Harbours• Railways• Dams and water transfer• Hazardous waste and waste water• Size thresholds Charles Cowap 4 MBA MRICS FAAV
  5. 5. The Application Process1. Pre-Application 2. IPC Acceptance Charles Cowap 5 MBA MRICS FAAV
  6. 6. 3. Pre-Examination 4. Examination Charles Cowap 6 MBA MRICS FAAV
  7. 7. 5. Decision 6. Post-decision Charles Cowap 7 MBA MRICS FAAV
  8. 8. Pre Application Stage Proposals @ 10 October 2011 Number Pre Application 59 Pre Examination 2 Examination 1 Decision 1 Archived 8 Total 71 Energy schemes 53 Transport schemes 16 Waste water schemes 2 TOTAL 71 Charles Cowap 8 MBA MRICS FAAV
  9. 9. Charles Cowap 9MBA MRICS FAAV
  10. 10. Pre-application: Adviser• Procedural advice• Information re. Land tenure and occupation: 14 days deadline• Consultation responses: 28 days• Pre-entry surveys and compensation claims• Early alert to compulsory acquisition Charles Cowap MBA MRICS10 FAAV
  11. 11. 2. Acceptance by IPC • IPC time period 28 days to accept or reject on grounds of adequate consultation and quality Charles Cowap MBA MRICS11 FAAV
  12. 12. Rookery South, BedfordshireWaste Combustion Plant, 65 MW,BedfordshireDecision due by 15 OctoberDeveloper’s Artist’s Impression Charles Cowap MBA MRICS12 FAAV
  13. 13. 3. Pre-Examination: Adviser• Register as an ‘interested party’• Make ‘relevant representation’• Initial representations – in outline – Principal arguments – NOT merits of NPS, compensation issues• Respond to published representations: 21 days• Preliminary meeting• Clarify role: representative, expert witness• Working up detailed representations Charles Cowap MBA MRICS13 FAAV
  14. 14. 4. Examination: Adviser• Preparation of detailed submissions: 28 days• Preliminary hearings: procedures, requests for expert witness• Respond to other submissions: 21 days• Hearings: representative or expert witness• Request compulsory acquisition hearing• Respond to local authority Local Impact Report• Land Acquisition negotiations• Resolution of acquisition issues via ADR or Compulsory Acquisition Hearings Charles Cowap MBA MRICS14 FAAV
  15. 15. 5. Decision: AdviserNational PolicyStatements• Energy – Overarching – Renewables – Fossil fuels – Oil and Gas – Electricity network – Nuclear – Approved on 19 July 2011 Charles Cowap MBA MRICS15 FAAV
  16. 16. 6. Post-decision• Legal challenge Charles Cowap MBA MRICS16 FAAV
  17. 17. .. And what IPC does not cover:• Infrastructure below the NSIP thresholds – Lower voltage electricity lines – Local highways – Smaller pipelines etc etc• Proposals covered by Hybrid Bill proposals – Eg HS2, the high-speed London-Birmingham rail link Charles Cowap MBA MRICS17 FAAV
  18. 18. IPC: All Change!• Localism Bill – Powers and procedures to be transferred to Major Infrastructure Planning Unit within Planning Inspectorate – All decisions will be taken by ministers: Commissioners will recommend based on National Policy Statements – NPS therefore retained – April 2012? – Meanwhile, business as usual for IPC Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  19. 19. Problems with tree roots Wright v Horsham DC [2011] UKUT319 (LC) • Compensation for refusal of TPO consent to fell 3 oak trees • Claims for underpinning work of £23,253.25 + £750 for distress etc • Awarded in full – Cost of underpinning should be in reasonable contemplation when consent is refused Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  20. 20. More tree rootsHalifax Insurance v Teignbridge DC[2011] UKUT 213 (LC)• TPO: Refusal of consent to thin crown on tree in 3rd party ownership• Compensation awarded £7,602 for remedial works and preventive measures• 3 tests for compensation: – Cause? – Compensation reasonably foreseeable? – General rules on damages Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  21. 21. Staying undergroundO’Donoghue & others v SoS for Transport [2011] UKUT 203 (LC)• Subsoil beneath 26 properties in North and East London• £50 each nominal payment for ‘tube’ of subsoil for underground railway – the St Pancras link to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (‘HS1’) Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  22. 22. Bocardo v Star EnergyHigh Court 2008• Surrey oilfield• Bocardo Estate, Oxted• Star Energy: Petroleum Production Licence• 1990 – 2007: 1 million barrels +• 800 feet deep• Trespass? Value of Wayleave? Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  23. 23. Bocardo v Star Energy 27.8.2008 EWHC 1756 ChBocardo Estate Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  24. 24. • Trespass – 17 years without being noticed – Simple ownership of minerals does not convey right to enter and remove them• Wayleave – 9% of value of the oil (£6.9 million) – Limitation – deliberate concealment (by Star) would have prevented a limitation period defence Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  25. 25. Bocardo (2)The Court of Appeal  Supreme CourtCourt of Appeal• Supported finding that oil extraction was a trespass, even though B’s use and enjoyment was not affected ‘one iota’• Compensation: based on s8(2) Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966.• Star proposed £82.50: £50 for a deep tunnel plus special purchaser uplift plus 10%• CA awarded £1,000Supreme Court [2010] UKSC 35• Confirmed trespass: unanimous all 5 judges• Nominal award of damages only: 3:2 majority Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  26. 26. And sticking with the Supreme CourtTransport for London v Spirerose Ltd [2009]UKHL 44• A lengthy case• Concluded that hope value, rather than full development, value should be reflected in award• Lengthy consideration of Point Gourde, value to owner and how to discount value attributable solely to the scheme Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  27. 27. Ongoing effects of SpirerosePersimmon Homes (Midlands) Ltd v SoS for Transport [2009]UKUT126 (LC)• Four key questions – Would there be a sustainable highways objection in the ‘no- scheme world’? – Would there be a sustainable planning objection in the ‘no- scheme world’? – If there was an objection, is there hope of future development? – Should betterment be set off against contiguous land? Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  28. 28. Ignoring the effects of the schemeAre we to imagine1. That ‘the scheme’ had never been  thought of? – In other words unravel several years’ worth of policy development OR2. That ‘the scheme’ has been ‘cancelled’ immediately prior to the valuation date?  Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  29. 29. The Creeping Impact of Localism on LandManagement• DCLG Circular 06/04: Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel Down Rules – Amended in 2011, p57• Local authorities must consider requests to use CP powers for community assets that are in danger of being lost, particularly if they come from voluntary or community organisations• Link to Assets of Community Value (Localism Bill) and proposed Local Green Area Designations – (Nat Env White Paper): Beware! Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  30. 30. A final thoughtShould we be formulating a fourth head of claim?• Valuation of land taken• Severance and Injurious Affection• Disturbance• Matters not directly based on the value of land? Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  31. 31. Pattle and Pattle v SoS for Transport [2009] UKUT 141 (LC)• Rule 6, s5, LCA 1961 – Compensation for Disturbance or any other matter not directly based on the value of the land• Lost rent not directly based on value of land (???) – As a disturbance claim, the owner was not in occupation to qualify for compensation – But as any other matter, possession is not required in order to claim See Jnl of Property Investment & Finance (2011) Vol 29, Issue 6 Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  32. 32. Theory Concluded But a quick plug for THE FIRST RICS RURAL WEBINARThursday 13 October 2011, 9.00 am to 10.00 amIHT VALUATIONS: AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL PROPERTY AFTER GOLDING https://training.rics.org/course/view.php?id=55 Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV
  33. 33. Contact DetailsIn-house CPD programmes, professional-technical updates, organisational consultancy, and more: cdcowap@gmail.com 01952 815305 07947 706505Twitter: @charlescowapBlog: http://charlescowap.wordpress.com/Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/cdcowap Charles Cowap MBA MRICS FAAV

×