Harris and another v Highways Agency
Blight notice – Validity – Draft compulsory purchase order made in respect of claimants’ land – Claimants serving blight notice – Respondent authority serving counternotice disputing validity of blight notice – Section 150(1)(b) and (c) of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Whether claimants required to show that unable to sell land despite reasonable endeavours – Whether entitled to rely on para 22 of Schedule 13 – Claim dismissed
The claimants were the freehold owners of two adjoining units on an industrial park in Brompton-on-Swale, North Yorkshire, plus land to the rear extending up to the embankment of the A1 road. In connection with a proposed upgrading of the A1 to motorway standard, the respondent authority made a draft compulsory purchase order under which it proposed to acquire nearly one-third of the claimants’ land. In May 2010, the claimants served a blight notice on the respondent, under section 150(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, requiring it to purchase their property.
In July 2010, the respondent served a counternotice in which it disputed the validity of the blight notice on the grounds that the conditions in section 150(1)(b) and (c) were not met. These required the claimants to show that they had made reasonable endeavours to sell their interest but, in consequence of the blight, had been unable to do so except at a price substantially lower than it might otherwise reasonably have been expected to fetch.
The matter was referred to the Upper Tribunal for determination. The claimants submitted that they did not have to fulfil the section 150(1) conditions since their land fell within para 22 of Schedule 13 to the Act, which applied where there was a CPO in force providing for the acquisition of a right over the land. As extended by the notes thereto, para 22 also covered land in respect of which: (a) a compulsory purchase order had been prepared in draft by a minister; or (b) a notice had been published under para 3(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 or any corresponding enactment applicable to it. The respondent contended that, since the CPO had not been confirmed, the claimants could only fall within para 22 by reason of the notes, and that, where that was so, they still had to fulfil the section 150(1) conditions.
Blight notice – Validity – Draft compulsory purchase order made in respect of claimants’ land – Claimants serving blight notice – Respondent authority serving counternotice disputing validity of blight notice – Section 150(1)(b) and (c) of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Whether claimants required to show that unable to sell land despite reasonable endeavours – Whether entitled to rely on para 22 of Schedule 13 – Claim dismissed
The claimants were the freehold owners of two adjoining units on an industrial park in Brompton-on-Swale, North Yorkshire, plus land to the rear extending up to the embankment of the A1 road. In connection with a proposed upgrading of the A1 to motorway standard, the respondent authority made a draft compulsory purchase order under which it proposed to acquire nearly one-third of the claimants’ land. In May 2010, the claimants served a blight notice on the respondent, under section 150(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, requiring it to purchase their property.In July 2010, the respondent served a counternotice in which it disputed the validity of the blight notice on the grounds that the conditions in section 150(1)(b) and (c) were not met. These required the claimants to show that they had made reasonable endeavours to sell their interest but, in consequence of the blight, had been unable to do so except at a price substantially lower than it might otherwise reasonably have been expected to fetch.The matter was referred to the Upper Tribunal for determination. The claimants submitted that they did not have to fulfil the section 150(1) conditions since their land fell within para 22 of Schedule 13 to the Act, which applied where there was a CPO in force providing for the acquisition of a right over the land. As extended by the notes thereto, para 22 also covered land in respect of which: (a) a compulsory purchase order had been prepared in draft by a minister; or (b) a notice had been published under para 3(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 or any corresponding enactment applicable to it. The respondent contended that, since the CPO had not been confirmed, the claimants could only fall within para 22 by reason of the notes, and that, where that was so, they still had to fulfil the section 150(1) conditions.
Decision: The claim was dismissed.Section 150(1)(b) required the claimants to have made reasonable endeavours to sell unless the land fell within para 22 of Schedule 13, disregarding the notes. Without the notes, para 22 did not apply since the CPO had not been confirmed, notwithstanding that it remained in existence in draft form. Accordingly, the claimants had to discharge the burden of proof under section 150(1)(b) and (c) that they had made reasonable endeavours to sell, and that, as a result of the land being blighted, either they could not do so or could only do so at a significantly reduced figure. No evidence had been produced to support the contention that the premises or the business have been blighted. Accordingly, the objections in the respondent’s counternotice were well founded and the blight notice was not valid or effective.
The first claimant, Michael Harris, appeared in person for the claimants; Mark Mullen (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
