Margaret Jones v Welsh Government

Under Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, section 7, injurious-affection compensation is assessed at the valuation date. The assessment disregards the acquiring authority’s scheme when valuing the retained land before severance, but takes account of the scheme’s anticipated effects afterwards. Only matters known, or reasonably foreseeable, at that date may be considered.

Where replacement access creates practical uncertainty, a prudent purchaser may discount the price offered. That discount may represent the compensable loss. Under the principle of equivalence, disturbance losses are recoverable where they are causally connected with acquisition, are not too remote, and have been reasonably mitigated.

Following compulsory acquisition of a small parcel of land for the A465 road-improvement scheme, Mrs Jones sought compensation for injurious affection to her retained rural property and for disturbance losses.

The principal issue was whether the loss of direct access to the former A465, and its replacement by a gated private maintenance access, reduced the property’s value at the valuation date of 6 November 2017. The claimant also sought the cost of temporary horse livery during construction and treatment of Japanese knotweed said to have spread onto the property because of the works.

The reference was determined on written representations and following a site inspection.

1. The reference was determined in the claimant’s favour in part. Total compensation was assessed at £30,477.70 before statutory interest and professional fees. That sum included agreed compensation of £1,697.70, injurious-affection compensation of £20,000, livery costs of £1,580 and Japanese-knotweed treatment costs of £7,200.

2. Under section 7 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, injurious affection had to be assessed as at 6 November 2017. The Tribunal applied the approach in Castlefield Properties Limited v National Highways Ltd [2023] UKUT 217 (LC). It assessed the retained land before severance in a no-scheme world and after severance with the scheme’s effects, using only information known or reasonably anticipated at the valuation date.

3. The later absence of completed legal rights over the replacement private maintenance access, and the later provision of gate keys, could not itself be treated as known at the valuation date. However, a purchaser would have anticipated uncertainty about the practical operation of the replacement route. Unlike the former track, the route involved gates and padlocks and was not a shortcut. A prudent purchaser would therefore make a round-figure discount of £20,000, rather than a percentage deduction, for that uncertainty.

4. The Tribunal applied the disturbance-compensation conditions stated in Director of Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd [1995] 2 AC 11: causal connection, absence of remoteness and reasonable mitigation. Temporary livery for a horse affected by nearby works satisfied those conditions and was awarded in full.

5. Although there was no conclusive evidence of the source of the Japanese knotweed, the Tribunal accepted the professional adviser’s pre-scheme observations and found the claim sufficiently connected with the works and not too remote. The reasonable treatment cost was £7,200. Alternatively, that expense would have been reflected as further injurious affection.

Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Reference determined on written representations. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.