Law Commission consultation on compulsory purchase

We provisionally propose that it should be expressly stated in legislation that the valuation date for injury to retained land (ie land which is held with the land acquired) is the same as that for the land acquired.

Do consultees agree?

We invite consultees’ views as to whether post-valuation date evidence should be taken into account in the assessment of compensation for injury to retained land. If so, should it be subject to any limitations or conditions?

We provisionally propose that where the date of possession precedes the date of assessment, the valuation date for rule (6) of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 may differ from the valuation date for rule (2). Items of consequential loss that are incurred after the date of possession (but before the date of assessment) may be assessed as actual, rather than anticipated, losses.

Do consultees agree?

We provisionally propose that the valuation date for equivalent reinstatement is put on a statutory footing in accordance with the rule in Birmingham Corporation v West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association (that it is the date on which commencement of the work of reinstatement became, or is expected to become, reasonably practicable).

Do consultees agree?

We invite consultees’ views as to whether any reforms could usefully be made to the statutory rule (in section 4 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981) that new interests or enhancements (where not reasonably necessary and undertaken with a view to obtaining more compensation) are to be disregarded in the assessment of compensation.

We provisionally propose that section 50 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (compensation where occupier is rehoused) should be retained and simplified in any future consolidated compulsory purchase legislation.

Do consultees agree?

We provisionally propose that it is made clear in legislation that the rule against compensation for uses that are contrary to law (currently in rule (4) of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961) applies to all heads of compensation.

Do consultees agree?

We provisionally propose that rule (4) of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, whereby increased value caused by illegal use is to be disregarded in the assessment of compensation, should be re-cast to make it clear that only breaches of the criminal law or the law as contained in statute fall within the scope of this provision.

Do consultees agree?

We invite consultees’ views as to whether the “detrimental to health” limb of rule (4) of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 should be retained.

We provisionally propose that the principle in Horn v Sunderland Corporation, that claims under the different heads of compensation must be mutually consistent, is codified in legislation.

Do consultees agree?

We provisionally propose that the duty to mitigate loss caused by the compulsory acquisition should be expressly stated in legislation. It should make it clear that the burden of proof in demonstrating a failure to mitigate lies with the acquiring authority.

Do consultees agree?