Greenweb Ltd v London Borough of Wandsworth

Where land falls within a statutory category attracting an assumed planning permission, the assumption is mandatory for compensation purposes. It must be made even where actual planning permission has been refused, the open-market value is minimal, and the assumption produces a substantial windfall. Clear statutory language cannot be recast as directory merely to preserve the principle of equivalence or avoid an anomaly. A court may depart from plain words only in the exceptional circumstances identified in the applicable authorities on statutory construction. Where those circumstances are absent, the court must apply the enacted scheme. Any resulting anomaly is a matter for Parliament to correct.

Greenweb served a purchase notice under the Land Compensation Act 1961. Wandsworth accepted it and was deemed to have served a notice to treat under section 139(3)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Lands Tribunal assessed compensation at £1.6 million, although the parties agreed that the land’s open-market value was £15,000 and that actual planning permission had been refused. Wandsworth appealed from the Tribunal’s decision, reported at [2007] EWLands LCA 118. The central issue was whether sections 14(1) and 15(3)(a) required an assumed permission for rebuilding historic buildings, notwithstanding the resulting disparity between compensation and market value.

The appeal was unanimously dismissed.

1. Part II of the Land Compensation Act 1961 contains general valuation rules and more specific assumptions. Sections 14(1) and 15(3) are expressed in mandatory terms. The word “applicable” requires the tribunal to decide whether the facts fall within the statutory conditions. Here, the historic buildings fell within paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The assumed permission therefore had to be made.
2. The absence of actual planning permission, its refusal by the Secretary of State, and the fact that the assumption produced compensation vastly exceeding market value did not displace the statutory direction. The court accepted the principle of equivalence, including that compensation should be fair and should not exceed the loss fairly attributable to compulsory acquisition. That principle could not authorise the court to treat a mandatory assumption as discretionary.
3. The authorities concerning statutory words such as “shall” did not assist Wandsworth. Brayhead showed that a mandatory duty need not make non-compliance fatal to the underlying decision. Attorney-General v Parsons and Re Turner’s Will Trusts depended on statutory context and history that were absent here. The approach in Stock v Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd was applied: plain words cannot be altered merely because they create anomalies. The identified exceptional conditions for departing from the words were not satisfied, particularly because the statutory language could not bear the proposed modification.
4. An assumed permission affects value only if capable of implementation. That condition was agreed in this case. The agreed valuation on the relevant basis was therefore £1.6 million. The court could not supply missing criteria or rewrite the Act. The recommendations that the relevant provisions be repealed or reviewed were matters for Parliament.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Wandsworth’s appeal dismissed under [2008] EWCA Civ 910.
• Lands Tribunal: compensation assessed at £1.6 million, reported at [2007] EWLands LCA 118.