Bridgend County Borough Council v Boland & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1004 (14 July 2017)

Bridgend County Borough Council v Boland & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1004 (14 July 2017)

The Upper Tribunal did not err in law in concluding that the redrawing of the settlement boundary was not part of the underlying scheme to be disregarded under the cancellation assumption. The development plan, once adopted, allowed for residential development of the Reference Land under general policies, and there...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 1004
Parties
Appellant: Bridgend County Borough Council; Respondent: Michael Boland; Respondent: Magalie Muriel Boland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development (caad), Land Compensation Act 1961, Planning Assumptions, Settlement Boundary, Compulsory Acquisition, Development Plan Interpretation
Compulsory Purchase Planning Law Land Compensation Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development (caad) Land Compensation Act 1961 Planning Assumptions Settlement Boundary Compulsory Acquisition +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bridgend County Borough Council

Appellant

Michael Boland

Respondent

Magalie Muriel Boland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the redrawing of the settlement boundary to include the Reference Land should be disregarded under the 'cancellation assumption' when considering a CAAD under section 17 of the Land Compensation Act 1961.
  2. 2 Whether the Upper Tribunal erred in law in granting a positive certificate for residential development.

Ratio Decidendi

The Upper Tribunal did not err in law in concluding that the redrawing of the settlement boundary was not part of the underlying scheme to be disregarded under the cancellation assumption. The development plan, once adopted, allowed for residential development of the Reference Land under general policies, and there were no special restrictions. The tribunal was entitled to find, as a matter of fact and planning judgment, that planning permission would have been granted for residential development absent the school scheme.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time granted for appeal due to administrative error.
  • Upper Tribunal's decision granting a positive CAAD for residential development of the Reference Land affirmed.