Boland v Welsh Development Agency

In compulsory purchase compensation, anticipated development profit may properly be refused where the proposed development was unlikely to be completed. Compensation may instead be confined to the value of the land taken. Concerns about an inspector’s comments or apparent preconceptions do not, without a sufficient basis for concluding that the award was wrong, justify permission to appeal or a rehearing likely to cause further expense.

The Welsh Development Agency compulsorily acquired land belonging to Mrs Boland for disposal to a housing association. A Lands Tribunal inspector awarded £155,000, while Mrs Boland claimed £350,000 for the land and £1,150,000 for lost development profit. She applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, complaining both that the award was inadequate and that the inspector’s comments suggested he had prejudged the case.

The central issue was whether those concerns, together with the alleged inadequacy of the compensation, provided a sufficient basis for a further appeal.

1. Application refused. The court declined permission to appeal from the inspector’s decision.
2. There were legitimate concerns about aspects of the hearing. The inspector had indicated at the outset that he would give no weight to the expert’s written evidence because the expert was not attending, had expressed a wish to finish a two-day hearing in one day, and had referred to protecting the public purse. Those remarks could have created an impression that he had made up his mind and was not prepared to listen.
3. That concern did not establish that the compensation award was wrong. In a development compensation claim, loss of anticipated profit need not be awarded where there was reason to suppose that the proposed development would never be completed. The inspector could properly confine compensation to the value of the land taken.
4. The court was also concerned that a rehearing would involve Mrs Boland in further expenditure after substantial costs had already been incurred. Since there was no reason to suppose that the amount awarded was incorrect, the procedural concerns did not justify permission for a further appeal.
5. The operative order was: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 25 July 2005, Sir Christopher Staughton refused Mrs Boland’s application for permission to appeal.
2. Lands Tribunal: An inspector, Mr Francis, awarded £155,000 in compensation following the compulsory purchase of the land. The decision’s citation was not stated in the judgment.