Bromilow v Greater Manchester Council

Compensation–Site beside bone-works–Injunction issued against owner of works before compensation hearing–Tribunal entitled to take into account possibility of works continuing to be used despite injunction–No error in law, tribunal’s assessment affirmed This was an appeal by Mr John Bromilow, owner of a site at 77 Manchester Road, Westhoughton, near Manchester, from a decision of the Lands Tribunal dated July 3 1974 determining at £6,500 the compensation payable on acquisition of the land by the respondents, the Greater Manchester Council. The decision of the Lands Tribunal was reported at (1974) 232 EG 1232. Mr A A Rumbelow (instructed by Stevensons, agents for Berry & Berry, Cocker Smith & Co, of Bolton) appeared for the appellant, and Mr M H Spence (instructed by Turner, Peacock, agents for the solicitor to the council) represented the respondents. Giving judgment, BUCKLEY LJ said: This is an appeal from a decision of the Lands Tribunal on June 6 1974 relating to a site at Westhoughton, near Manchester, known as 77 Manchester Road. At the time of the decision the site lay within the urban district of Westhoughton, but it now lies within the metropolitan district of Greater Manchester. This is a site of probable growth, and the prospective plans for its development include the introduction of new access roadways which would considerably increase its accessibility from Manchester and no doubt from other areas as well. In September 1971 the appellant obtained a certificate under the Land Compensation Act 1971, section 17, to the effect that this property would have been given planning permission for development as an office block were it not for the fact that it lies upon the route of a proposed new road called route 225. On October 26 1971 the appellant served notice on the local authority under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, section 139, requiring the authority to buy the land upon the basis that it had been adversely affected by the planning arrangements, and that notice was accepted by the local authority. Consequently, the value of the land had to be determined, and that matter came before the Lands Tribunal, when the decision was reached from which the present appeal is brought. The difference between the two sides, that is to say the appellant and the acquiring authority, was that whereas the appellant’s valuer, a Mr Derek Johnson, valued the site at £30,833 upon the basis that it would be a site that would attract a developer who would wish to develop it for office use, the district valuer took the view that it would command no market for development in that way, and upon that basis he valued it at £6,500, a very substantial difference. In close proximity to the site, within 100 yds of it, there is a building which was in use as a bone-works, where animal waste was processed, and that was an activity which was liable to occasion offensive smells. In October 1971 the local authority obtained an injunction in the Chancery Court of the County Palatine of Lancaster restraining the owners of the bone-works perpetually from so carrying on their business there as to cause a nuisance by stenches. We do not know what subsequently occurred, if anything, in relation to that injunction. We do know that the bone-works continued in operation until October 1974, and that on July 15 1974 the owners of the bone-works circularised their customers stating their intention then to discontinue the operation of the bone-works. They did not, however, in fact discontinue until a somewhat later date, namely October 7 1974. The proceedings came before the Lands Tribunal for determination in June 1974, and Mr Johnson and the district valuer both gave evidence. It appears from a note of that evidence which has been read to us–it was not before the Lands Tribunal, because this is evidence which relates to the evidence which was given before the Lands Tribunal–that Mr Johnson in the course of the re-examination said that the public health authority had served a notice of closure on the works, referring to the bone-works. It has not been made clear to us by counsel on either side precisely what he meant by ‘a notice of closure.’  It also emerges from the evidence which has been put before this court that the district valuer in the course of his evidence referred to the fact that an injunction had been obtained, and he went on to say that the Westhoughton council had been striving for 10 years to get something done about the bone-works, but without success. That being the state of the evidence, the member of the Lands Tribunal who heard the case said this: ‘The district valuer accepted that although the 1971 master plan and written statement had no statutory significance, it was envisaged that Westhoughton would increase in size. He did not accept, however, that the locality of the site itself could be regarded as included in the potential growth area. In his opinion there would be no demand at all for the site for an office-block development. After inspection, I find myself in agreement with the district valuer as to this lack of demand. This finding does not rest on a rejection of Mr Johnson’s evidence regarding the influence of the motorway network on development trends generally. It rests on the location of the site itself. As has been indicated, the site is in a locality where it is the industrial use that predominates. Opposite the site there is a paint-works and a plant-hire depot. Less than 50 yds away there is a large engineering works fabricating steel plates. And within 100 yds there is a bone-works. This last factor would, I think, be decisive in causing any potential office-block developer to lose completely any interest he might otherwise have shown in the site. The bone-works are physically unattractive. More importantly, they give forth a noisome smell. The district valuer’s evidence was that in his capacity as valuation officer he had received a series of proposals from local residents for reductions of assessment (both on the 1963 valuation list and on the 1973 list) because of the presence of these works; the local authority had been trying for years to get the bone-works closed; and although an enforcement notice had been served, this had been ineffective.’ 4 Then the member of the Lands Tribunal went on to say that as he did not consider that there would be any demand for a site for development as an office block, the section 17 certificate that I have mentioned was not of significance. We are asked to disturb that decision of the Lands Tribunal, which accepted the district valuer’s valuation in preference to the valuation of the appellant’s valuer on the grounds contained in the passage which I have just read. There is an appeal to this court from the Lands Tribunal in a case of this nature only on questions of law, and therefore, in order to succeed in this appeal, the appellant has to show that in some way or other the Lands Tribunal erred in law. The way in which Mr Rumbelow has put his case is this. He says that there was unchallenged evidence before the court that the closure notice had been served, and that the Lands Tribunal rejected or disregarded that evidence, and so (I think Mr Rumbelow would go as far as to say this) the Lands Tribunal reached a conclusion that it could not reasonably reach in that state of the evidence. He has asked us to entertain the evidence about what has since occurred in relation to the closure of the bone-works as indicating that the member of the Lands Tribunal was mistaken in attributing to the existence of the bone-works the decisive influence upon the position which the member considered that it had. I have looked with care at the evidence which had a bearing upon this point which was available to the Lands Tribunal when the matter was decided. It was not very voluminous; it consists of the various passages to which I have made reference. It seems to me impossible to say on the state of that evidence that there were not grounds in the evidence upon which the tribunal could reasonably arrive at the view that it did. The evidence of Mr Bell that the local authority had been striving for 10 years to get something done about the bone-works without success seems to me to have been ample evidence to justify the member in arriving at the conclusion that the bone-works must be treated as something that was likely to go on, notwithstanding that the injunction had been granted, and that the existence of the bone-works was a baleful influence upon the value of the appellant’s site which would in truth have dissuaded any developer who might consider buying the site for development for offices from going on with any such project. For this reason, it seems to me that there is no ground for saying that the Lands Tribunal erred in law, and in those circumstances I do not think there is any assistance that we can give to the appellant. I appreciate that he probably feels that his case was dealt with on a view of the facts that was unduly pessimistic from his point of view, but it was a view which I think the member of the Lands Tribunal was perfectly entitled to take upon the evidence before him. Accordingly, in my judgment, this appeal must fail. ORR LJ: I agree. SIR GORDON WILLMER: I also agree. The appeal was dismissed with costs.