J U D G M E N T

1. SIR CHRISTOPHER STAUGHTON: Mrs Boland is applying for permission to appeal from a decision of an inspector of the Lands Tribunal, Mr Francis, by which he gave a very limited amount of compensation to be paid by the Welsh Development Agency.

2. There was a compulsory purchase order made by the Welsh Development Agency so that they could dispose of a piece of land which belonged to Mrs Boland to the Hafod Housing Association. The amount of order to be paid to her was a mere £155,000.

3. There was to be reduced from that amount an outstanding land charge of £9,184 because, it is said, that there was building work contrary to section 79 of the Building Act. But we are not concerned with that today.

4. Mrs Boland, who was represented by her husband, was arguing for £350,000 for loss of the land, because that, she said, was its value, and secondly, the sum of £1,150,000 for loss of an opportunity to earn profit by development. The land is in Penarth, Western Terrace. There was other land that Mrs Boland wished to amalgamate, or at any rate to include for the purpose of a larger development.

5. What happened in the event was that the Hafod Housing Association built 10 private residential houses on this site, which was just about one-third of an acre. Mrs Boland, on the other hand, had a number of different ideas over quite a long period.

6. They were set out by Mr Francis as follows, but I do not have to decide whether in all respects he did so accurately. Mrs Boland bought the site in about 1980. There were five or six industrial enterprises on this site, and as time went by the owners left or were persuaded to go. By 1989, which was long enough in all conscience, they had all been persuaded to go.

7. Meanwhile, there had been planning applications. She asked for planning permission for twenty terraced units in 1980, which was refused as over-development. Later, there was an application for 17 houses, or 16. That was refused by the planning authority but granted on appeal. That permission, according to Mr Francis, was allowed to lapse, but he did not pursue that point.

8. Meanwhile, the Hafod Housing Association had been trying to buy from Mrs Boland, in 1991, without success. In 1993 the Hafod Housing Association applied for permission for 14 two or three bedroomed buildings. This was granted. Mrs Boland applied for 19 one bedroom sheltered housing units and a two bedroom warden house. This too was granted, for persons over the age of 60, as I understand it.

9. Progress was not made to any great extent. Mrs Boland's builder did do some building, to eight of the houses to a limited height, but she was, as it seems to me, unable to complete the project although the Welsh Ministry did allow it. What had happened was that the compulsory purchase order had been made, but the Welsh Ministry allowed Mrs Boland to continue. There does not seem to have been any great progress. Eventually, when there had been quite a long time without progress, the compulsory purchase order, in 1996, or 1997 was upheld and allowed to proceed.

10. Then there came, years later, the claim for compensation for Mrs Boland.

11. There are one or two strange features of the hearing. The witnesses had given statements which were available to Mr Francis before the hearing. Then, the first problem was that Mrs Boland did not have the money to pay her expert witness to attend at the hearing. He had given written evidence, but she and her husband decided not to spend the additional £4,000 for him to give evidence in person at the hearing. So the expert witness did not give evidence.

12. The Inspector said, apparently right at the start of the hearing, that he was not going to give any weight to evidence of the expert, and that if he had given oral evidence, he would have been torn to pieces by the counsel briefed by the Welsh Development Agency. That is not, one would have thought, a thing to say at the start of the hearing. The Inspector also said that the case was booked for two days, but he, the Inspector, hoped it would be over in one day. That it is very often said, even in this Court. Perhaps we ought not to say that sort of thing. But that is what he said. He also said that he had to remember that he had to protect the public purse. I find it difficult to see in what respect the Inspector had to protect the public purse or why he had to mention that. But it is true that even in this Court, we are told that we have to protect the public purse in some degree, and it may be that what Mr Francis said in that respect was reasonable.

13. Then we come to the question: was the amount awarded by the Inspector inadequate or was £155,000 an appropriate amount?

14. There are reasons for not awarding loss of profit on a development, particularly if there is a reason to suppose that it would never have come into completion. That was the point which the inspector had in mind, I think and there are cases which have been decided on the basis that it is only the loss of the value of the land that has been confiscated. That was a decision which he could properly reach.

15. I have been very much concerned with the things that the Inspector said, which may have given the impression that he had made up his mind and that he was not prepared to listen to anything more. But, on the other hand, I have no reason to suppose that the amount which he did award was wrong. I am very much concerned that Mr and Mrs Boland should not involve themselves in yet more expenditure, after the large amount spent already. They may say: well, we ought to be allowed to have a rehearing. But I fear that this would be yet another loss to them.

16. So, I find that I should not grant permission to have an appeal in this Court.

17. There was an occasion, many years ago, when Lord Denning had an appeal by a lady from Wales, and he said: you had better not go any further but go back to Wales. I have the feeling that is the right answer here.

ORDER: APPLICATION REFUSED