Couple ruined by bypass plan seek six-figure payout
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
An elderly couple whose lives were blighted by a plan to run a bypass only 13 feet (four metres) from their £435,000 home begin the final round today in their battle for compensation.
Maurice and Audrey Balchin were left penniless after their bank learnt of the proposals to site the road and called in loans on their newly built property, forcing them to move and sell their business. Mr Balchin, 67, and his wife, 65, have not received any compensation since Norfolk County Council said it intended to seek planning permission for the Wroxham/Hoveton bypass nearly 10 years ago.
Their plight was described by a High Court judge last year as "quite incredible". They are seeking hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Government in compensation.
The road was to pass within 13 feet of the couple's home – Swans Harbour, Beech Road, Wroxham, then worth £435,000 – on an embankment 12 and a half feet high, level with their bedroom window.
Although the scheme was cancelled in 1996, that was too late to save the Balchins from ruin. Potential buyers were put off by the chance of the plans being resurrected and Swans Harbour was only sold three years ago for £220,000 – half its original value – just before it was due to be repossessed.
Their case was twice considered by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and his decisions to clear the Department for Transport of maladministration were twice struck down as unlawful by the High Court in 1996 and 1997. In September last year the ombudsman considered their case for the third time and finally found that there had been maladministration on the part of government officials.
He said the officials had been "unaware" of powers in the Highways Act that could have enabled the county council to buy the couple's home or pay them compensation. They had also failed in their duty to tell the council of those powers.
But the Balchins, who relied on Mr Balchin's chartered surveying business, were left bitterly disappointed when the ombudsman went on to rule that the officials' errors had "made no difference" because the council would have refused to help them even if it had been aware of its powers.
Today the couple, who now live in Suffolk, are seeking a judicial review of that part of the ombudsman's decision. If they win their case, they will be free to pursue the Government for compensation. At a High Court hearing last year, when the couple were given permission to bring today's legal challenge, Mr Justice Moses referred to their predicament as "quite incredible". He said parts of the ombudsman's reasoning "do not stack up". He also said that the county council had appeared "hell bent" on not paying the Balchins compensation for reasons that were, on the face of it, "quite unlawful".
The "wholly bogus" reasons given, including that to pay compensation would be a damaging precedent, displayed a "gross misunderstanding" of the council's statutory powers, he added.
Central and local government officials had shown "a woeful ignorance of the statutory regime" and the judge observed: "Nobody bothered to find out what the law really was." He added: "Everyone just wrings their hands about this case. Is there no way something can be done? I'm amazed that the law seems powerless."
Mr Balchin's son, Warren, said outside court at the time: "My mother and father have lost years of their life because of this. If they could get just something back to enjoy the rest of their lives, I would be happy." He said his parents would be seeking "hundreds of thousands of pounds" from the Government for the loss of their home and the destruction of their business.
Charles George QC, for the couple, told the court he was "reasonably confident" that, if the ombudsman finally decided in the Balchins' favour, "the department will pay up".