(1) PORTLAND STONE FIRMS LIMITED (2) STONE FIRMS LIMITED v Dorset County Council
Decision date: 4 December 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 527 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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: high
This case concerns compensation under section 107 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 following a modification order made by Dorset County Council imposing conditions on longstanding Portland quarry permissions after SAC designation. The Tribunal held that, in assessing loss under s.107, the correct counterfactual is the claimant's real position absent the modification order but taking account of existing statutory processes at the valuation date — in particular the outstanding ROMP application and Schedule 13 regime — and that those matters are therefore legally relevant to valuation and causation. The Tribunal also decided it had no power under rule 10(6)(b) to order costs for the preliminary issues; other procedural questions were reserved.
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: high
When assessing compensation under s.107 for a modification order, the proper counterfactual is the claimant’s position without the modification order but including any existing statutory processes or designations (such as an outstanding ROMP application, Schedule 13 procedures, SSSI/SAC designations) as they actually existed at the valuation date; those matters are legally relevant and may materially affect valuation and causation.
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 observed that it would offend the reality/equivalence principles if claimants could secure full compensation by precipitating a modification order when a ROMP determination, if allowed to run its course, would lawfully have imposed the same conditions without compensation; it also noted practical evidential difficulties in predicting timing and outcome of a ROMP determination and whether Schedule 13 compensation would have been payable.