This document provides an overview of the compulsory purchase process in the UK. It discusses the theoretical frameworks around compensation, the relevant legislation and authorities governing nationally significant infrastructure projects, and the multi-stage application process. It also summarizes some recent court cases related to compulsory acquisition and compensation.

1. Compulsory Purchase Update
The Theory
Charles Cowap
Penkridge, Staffs
10 October 2011
http://www.slideshare.net/cdcowap
Charles Cowap
MBA MRICS FAAV

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. 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. 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. The Application Process
1. Pre-Application 2. IPC Acceptance
Charles Cowap
5
MBA MRICS FAAV

6. 3. Pre-Examination 4. Examination
Charles Cowap
6
MBA MRICS FAAV

7. 5. Decision 6. Post-decision
Charles Cowap
7
MBA MRICS FAAV

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. Charles Cowap
9
MBA MRICS FAAV

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. 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. Rookery South, Bedfordshire
Waste Combustion Plant, 65 MW,
Bedfordshire
Decision due by 15 October
Developer’s Artist’s Impression
Charles Cowap
MBA MRICS12
FAAV

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. 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. 5. Decision: Adviser
National Policy
Statements
• Energy
– Overarching
– Renewables
– Fossil fuels
– Oil and Gas
– Electricity network
– Nuclear
– Approved on 19
July 2011
Charles Cowap
MBA MRICS15
FAAV

16. 6. Post-decision
• Legal challenge
Charles Cowap
MBA MRICS16
FAAV

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. 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. 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. More tree roots
Halifax 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. Staying underground
O’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. Bocardo v Star Energy
High 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. Bocardo v Star Energy
27.8.2008
EWHC 1756 Ch
Bocardo Estate
Charles Cowap
MBA MRICS FAAV

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. Bocardo (2)
The Court of Appeal  Supreme Court
Court 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 £1,000
Supreme Court [2010] UKSC 35
• Confirmed trespass: unanimous all 5 judges
• Nominal award of damages only: 3:2 majority
Charles Cowap
MBA MRICS FAAV

26. And sticking with the Supreme Court
Transport 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. Ongoing effects of Spirerose
Persimmon 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. Ignoring the effects of the scheme
Are we to imagine
1. That ‘the scheme’ had never been

thought of?
– In other words unravel several
years’ worth of policy development
OR
2. That ‘the scheme’ has been
‘cancelled’ immediately prior to the
valuation date? 
Charles Cowap
MBA MRICS FAAV

29. The Creeping Impact of Localism on Land
Management
• 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. A final thought
Should 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. 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. Theory Concluded
But a quick plug for
THE FIRST RICS RURAL WEBINAR
Thursday 13 October 2011, 9.00 am to 10.00 am
IHT VALUATIONS: AGRICULTURAL AND
RURAL PROPERTY AFTER GOLDING
https://training.rics.org/course/view.php?id=55
Charles Cowap
MBA MRICS FAAV

33. Contact Details
In-house CPD programmes, professional-technical updates,
organisational consultancy, and more:
 cdcowap@gmail.com
 01952 815305
 07947 706505
Twitter: @charlescowap
Blog: http://charlescowap.wordpress.com/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/cdcowap
Charles Cowap
MBA MRICS FAAV