[2025] UKUT 312 (LC)

City Park Gate is one of four adjoining sites taken in 2018 by the Secretary of State for Transport for the construction of a new railway station at Curzon Street in the Eastside quarter of Birmingham. The new station will be the terminus of HS2, the high-speed rail link between London and the West Midlands. The owners of each of the four sites are entitled to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of their property and, in the absence of agreement, the amount of that compensation is to be determined by this Tribunal on a reference under the Land Compensation Act 1961 (“the LCA”). This decision is a further step towards that determination.

The decision is made on an appeal under section 18 of the LCA by Quintain City Park Gate Birmingham Ltd (which we will call “Quintain”) against the non-determination by the local planning authority, Birmingham City Council (“the Council”), of an application by Quintain for a certificate under section 17 of the LCA. The purpose of such a certificate is toidentify appropriate alternative development for the land taken to assist in determining its value. We will refer to it as a “CAAD”, or simply as a certificate.

At earlier stages of these proceedings, Quintain’s appeal has been considered together with similar appeals by the landowners of the three adjoining sites which were also taken for the new Curzon Street Station. Two important issues common to all four sites have already been determined. The first, an issue of law on which the Tribunal’s decision was the subject of appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, concerned the relevance of one CAAD application or decision to a decision concerning a neighbouring site. The second, an issue of fact reflecting the proximity of the four sites to the main campuses of both Aston University and Birmingham City University, concerned the level of planning need in Birmingham at the valuation date for purpose built student accommodation (“PBSA”).

We now focus on each of the sites individually, beginning with Quintain’s City Park Gate.

The key date for the purpose of this appeal is 17 July 2018, the date on which the Secretary of State took possession pursuant to a general vesting declaration executed on 3 April 2018. That is the valuation date for the determination of Quintain’s entitlement to compensation. At this stage it is also the date at which the availability of planning permission for appropriate alternative development is to be assessed.

In its broadest outline Quintain’s case is that a CAAD should be issued for a mixed use development of up to 99,490 sqm (GIA) including retail, office, residential, hotel and PBSA uses comprised in blocks ranging in height from 8 to 32 storeys; a key feature of Quintain’s proposal is that it would allow the landowner complete flexibility to determine the balance between residential and PBSA uses and to include up to 1,940 new student bed spaces.

The Secretary of State agrees that a CAAD should be issued for substantial mixed use development but takes issue with the scale of Quintain’s proposals on townscape, heritage and design grounds and separately challenges the principle that the certificate should leave the landowner free to choose how much PBSA should be developed, potentially to the exclusion of any general needs and affordable housing. The Secretary of State considers that at the valuation date appropriate alternative development comprised up to 75,017 sqm (GIA) in blocks of between 3 and 24 storeys, including retail, office, residential and PBSA uses, and proposes conditions which would prevent the development of more than 18,097 sqm of PBSA (sufficient for 554 student bed spaces) and which would require the provision of at least 27,154 sqm of general residential accommodation.

We are not required to choose between the parties’ proposals. Quintain accepts that the development identified by the Secretary of State is development for which planning permission could reasonably have been expected to have been granted on the valuation date. Quintain’s position is that the Secretary of State’s proposal is neither the maximum nor the optimum form of development for which planning permission could reasonably have been expected and that its own proposal should also be granted a certificate.

Although a CAAD might often include a condition requiring the provision of affordable housing as part of any residential development, the parties agreed to defer consideration of that issue until a further hearing to determine the amount of compensation payable.

We received expert evidence on the property market in Birmingham and the circumstances known to it and the wider market at the valuation date from Mr Michael Maguire MRICS and Mr Richard Owen FRICS. Evidence on urban design and architecture was given by Mr Stephen Townsend RIBA and Mr Robert King RIBA. Mr Richard Coleman RIBA and Mrs Amy Jones MCIfA gave evidence on the impact of the alternative schemes of development on two heritage assets, the Grade II listed Fox and Grapes public house, and the Grade II listed Moor Street railway station. Finally, evidence on planning issues was given by Mr Paul Rouse MRICS and Mr John Adams MRICS. Shortly after the hearing, we undertook a site inspection of the Appeal Site and surrounding developments following a walking route suggested by the parties.