Whelan v British Gas plc
Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; (1993) 33 RVR 240-260(21)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: LT 2 April 1993. British Gas compulsorily purchased an easement to construct, place and use below ground two gas pipes over and upon part of a field. They also acquired the right to occupy part of the field for 12 months while the pipes were installed. Most compensation was agreed but there was an outstanding claim for injurious affection under Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 s7. W contended that the rights acquired had the effect of preventing agricultural improvement of the land and adjoining land, which would have constituted permitted development under General Development Order 1977. He prepared four potential schemes and four corresponding valuations, his favoured one giving a valuation of £115,244. British Gas contended that on the valuation day the land was subject to an agricultural tenancy therefore W was not the proper claimant except in so far as he could show damage. Held that acquisition of the easement had not produced any recoverable compenstaion for loss of land improvem| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS49949 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 73448-1001 |
LT 2 April 1993. British Gas compulsorily purchased an easement to construct, place and use below ground two gas pipes over and upon part of a field. They also acquired the right to occupy part of the field for 12 months while the pipes were installed. Most compensation was agreed but there was an outstanding claim for injurious affection under Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 s7. W contended that the rights acquired had the effect of preventing agricultural improvement of the land and adjoining land, which would have constituted permitted development under General Development Order 1977. He prepared four potential schemes and four corresponding valuations, his favoured one giving a valuation of £115,244. British Gas contended that on the valuation day the land was subject to an agricultural tenancy therefore W was not the proper claimant except in so far as he could show damage. Held that acquisition of the easement had not produced any recoverable compenstaion for loss of land improvem