R BONNELL (DECEASED) W K MORGAN v Carmarthenshire County Council

Decision date: 10 November 2014

Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 413 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

The Upper Tribunal allowed two s.18 appeals against Carmarthenshire County Council’s certificates for land at Abernant Farm (Bonnell) and Dolwerdd (Morgan), cancelling the council’s CAADs and issuing positive certificates identifying specified areas for residential development (at 33 units/ha: 38 units Bonnell; 57 units Morgan) and a limited industrial area on part of Bonnell. The Tribunal held that the council’s assessment had been wrong in the "no scheme" world and directed the council to pay the appellants’ costs on an indemnity basis.

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 deciding CAADs under s.17/18 the decision-maker must take account of relevant development plan allocations (here PDB31) in the "no scheme" world rather than disregarding them because the acquiring authority’s scheme is assumed cancelled; features such as housing land supply and proximity to the plan period end are material to what planning permission would reasonably have been granted.

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 endorsed that, absent special reasons, equivalence supports indemnity recovery of reasonable costs in compulsory-acquisition-related proceedings, and noted that s.14 provisions concerning in-force permissions for valuation do not determine CAAD outcomes under s.17 which requires the "no scheme" assumption.