Compulsory purchase order — Scheme of development corporation — Planning permission for regeneration — Statement of reasons in support of regeneration — Highway improvement scheme proposed by local authority — Part of order land agreed to be provided for highway — Whether order confirmed in part for an object for which it was not made — Application by landowner dismissed
The applicant company owns two groups of office buildings and a car park (“plot 11”) within an area for which the second respondents, Tyne & Wear Development Corporation, have responsibilities and functions. On June 26 1989 the corporation made a compulsory purchase order, including plot 11, stating at the time that their purpose was the regeneration of the area for which they had the benefit of an earlier planning permission. Neither the permission nor the statutory statement of reasons before the public inquiry made specific mention of any road proposals. At about the same time Newcastle City Council withdrew objections to a highway stopping order on the corporation agreeing to provide part of the land within plot 11 for a road improvement scheme. On July 3 1990 the first respondents, the Secretaries of State for Environment, Transport and Energy, confirmed the CPO.
The applicants applied under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 to quash part of the CPO on the ground, inter alia, that it was ultra vires being confirmed for a purpose other than that for which it was made, namely to provide the local authority with land for a highway scheme, rather than for the stated purpose of the order, the regeneration of the area.
Held The application was dismissed.
The stated object of the CPO was broadly defined and its ambit was not to be determined as a court would construe a statute. When the order is within the statutory power it is for the Secretary of State to determine as a matter of fact and degree what the true object of the acquiring authority is at the confirmation stage and whether it conforms with the object for which they made the order and, if so, whether to confirm it for that object. The only basis for challenging the ministers’ decision would be Wednesbury unreasonableness or a failure to take into account a relevant consideration. The inspector and the first respondents were entitled to recommend and to confirm, respectively, the order so as to include land required for the highway scheme if in their view it was necessary to achieve the regeneration of the area.
Malcolm Spence QC and Nicholas Nardecchia (instructed by the solicitor to Proctor & Gamble Ltd) appeared for the applicants; Robert Carnwath QC and Alison Foster (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondents; and David Mole QC and Nicholas Huskinson (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) appeared for the second respondents.
