J S BLOOR (WILMSLOW) LIMITED v J S BLOOR (WILMSLOW) v LIMITEDHOMES AND COMMUNITIES AGENCY
Decision date: 1 July 2013
Neutral citation: [2013] UKUT 231 (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 concerned valuation of 26.85 acres compulsorily acquired for the Kingsway Business Park (KBP) and whether the land had development (hope) value at the 4 Jan 2006 valuation date. The Tribunal applied the cancellation assumption (s.16 LCA 1961), found a realistic c.50% prospect of residential permission in a "no KBP" world with appropriate deferral periods, but held that much uplift attributable to the wider KBP scheme must be disregarded under s.6 and Schedule 1; compensation was fixed at £746,000 and the claimant awarded costs.
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
For valuation under s.5 Rule (2) the correct approach is first to identify planning assumptions under s.16 (including applying the cancellation assumption to assume the CPO on the reference land alone had been cancelled while taking site facts at the valuation date), and then to apply the statutory disregards in s.6 and Schedule 1 to deduct increases in value attributable to development of other land authorised to be acquired; where the CPO encompasses the wider scheme the statutory disregards will generally supply the full answer and the Waters/Pointe Gourde principle, if relevant, is only a supplementary analogy.
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 suggested (obiter) that restrictive covenants affecting access might be treated as released between related companies for valuation where no hypothetical purchaser would pay more than existing use value; that planning authorities in a "no KBP" universe may be less rigid about phasing/conditions securing cooperation; and that infrastructure outside the CPO (e.g. a motorway junction) may nevertheless be taken as a factual circumstance on the ground.