Carolyn Taylor & Anor v The Metropolitan Borough Council of Stockport

Compulsory-purchase compensation is assessed by reference to an open-market sale in the no-scheme world. Hope value may be allowed where a prudent purchaser would pay for a real prospect of future planning permission, even if permission is unlikely at the valuation date.

Planning permissions for Green Belt sites do not establish comparable development potential where they depended on materially different circumstances, such as replacement development, development outside the Green Belt, or permissible infilling. Isolated land within an operating golf course which makes a strong contribution to the Green Belt was highly unlikely to qualify for Green Belt exceptions. In the absence of helpful comparable evidence, modest hope value may nevertheless be appropriate.

Two adjoining holdings, comprising small parcels within the former Woodford Golf Course, were compulsorily acquired in 2015 for a road scheme. The acquiring authority referred the compensation claims to the Upper Tribunal so that it could pursue the deed-poll procedure.

The claimants contended that each parcel had substantial development potential. The authority contended that the Green Belt designation excluded hope value and relied on small-plot comparables. The central issues were whether nearby planning permissions indicated a prospect of permission for the reference land and the amount of compensation payable on the statutory no-scheme basis.

1. Compensation was determined at £645 for Carolyn Taylor and £1,290 for Martin Taylor. Those sums comprised market-value compensation of £600 and £1,200 respectively, plus a 7.5% basic-loss addition under Land Compensation Act 1973.
2. The reference land had to be valued on the assumed open-market sale in the no-scheme world. The court accepted that a purchaser could allow an element of hope value for future development, despite the absence of a present planning permission.
3. The permissions relied on by the claimants were not planning comparables. They concerned replacement development, sites outside the Green Belt, or land qualifying as permissible infilling. The reference parcels were instead isolated plots in the centre of an operating golf course and made a strong contribution to the Green Belt. Residential development was highly unlikely to be permissible under paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
4. The comparable evidence was sparse and generally indicated nominal values. However, the evidence did not justify a nil allowance for future potential. The Tribunal considered that the approach in Budhathoki and Others v The Metropolitan Borough Council of Stockport, [2022] UKUT 00035(LC), remained appropriate. No size adjustment was required.

not stated in the judgment.