Thomas Newell Limited v Lancaster City Council
Decision date: 8 February 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 2 (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 decided preliminary planning questions in a compulsory purchase compensation reference for St George's Works, Lancaster. The Tribunal held that a local plan Housing Opportunity Site policy is an "area allocated primarily for a use" under s.16(2) LCA 1961 (not s.16(1)), that the correct approach is the statutory cancellation/no‑scheme assumption applied at the valuation date, and that planning permission for the claimant's wholly residential proposal should not be assumed at that date. It found a 40% prospect that permission would be granted within five years under s.14(3) subject to specified conditions and S106 obligations, and that reserved matters approval under the 2002 outline permission would not reasonably have been expected.
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
The binding ratio is that, for s.16 assessments, the statutory cancellation/no‑scheme assumption must be applied as at the valuation date when deciding what planning permission might reasonably have been expected, and that a site identified in a local plan as a Housing Opportunity Site constitutes an "area allocated primarily for a use" under s.16(2) rather than a "site of proposed development" under s.16(1).
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 commented (obiter) that the Pointe Gourde/no‑scheme principle does not permit assuming cancellation of the acquiring authority's scheme beyond the scope of s.16(7) and that where a proposed development would prejudice an arguably viable, publicly supported comprehensive redevelopment scheme, that prejudice is a strong planning objection weighing against permission even if site‑specific policy supports development.