Carolyn Taylor & Anor v The Metropolitan Borough Council of Stockport
Decision date: 27 May 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 142 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: medium
This appeal concerned compensation for two small former golf-course plots compulsorily purchased for the A555 relief road, focusing on whether the land had hope value/development potential in the no‑scheme hypothetical market. The Tribunal found the plots made a strong contribution to the Green Belt, held the permissions and appeals relied on by the claimants were materially different and did not show a realistic prospect of development, accepted the acquiring authority’s small‑plot comparables and awarded nominal market values with statutory basic loss additions.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
Where reference land makes a strong contribution to the Green Belt, evidence that purported permissions or appeal decisions support development value must show comparability in planning terms to the no‑scheme hypothetical; absent such comparability and absent evidence of marketing, promotion agreements or other indicators of a genuine development prospect, valuation may properly be based on small‑plot comparables reflecting nominal prices.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal noted that absence of evidence about how plots were marketed, any promotion agreements, or receipts of rent from the seller may be significant to the statutory basis of valuation, and that allegations of land‑banking can be relevant though were not accepted on the evidence here.
Warning
- The chunk contains some repetition and editorial artefacts; the text is slightly disjointed in places. The notes contain some repetition and are slightly disjointed; they may be incomplete in places.