Sale of land at airfield – Secretary of State refusing former owners first opportunity to repurchase land – Whether Secretary of State erred in determining land as a whole had materially changed in character – Crichel Down Rules 1992 r 9 – Application dismissed
The Ministry of Defence compulsorily acquired parcels of land over a number of years, which formed RAF Kemble. The Secretary of State declared RAF Kemble to be surplus to requirements.The applicants, including former owners of the land and an association of companies that occupied premises at the airfield, were concerned over the sale of the land to a third party. The Secretary of State considered r 9 of the Crichel Down Rules 1992, which provides: “Where a department wishes to dispose of land to which the rules apply, former owners will, as a general rule, be given a first opportunity to repurchase the land… provided that it has not been materially changed in character since acquisition”. In his decision letter of 21 September 1999, the Secretary of State determined, inter alia, that he was not obliged to offer back the property to the former owners because the property had materially changed in character since acquisition and therefore r 9 applied. Accordingly, the land would be offered for sale on the open market. The applicants sought to quash the Secretary of State’s decision, principally on the ground that he had misconstrued r 9. They submitted that the pronoun “it” did not refer to the whole of the land for disposal. Consequently, the Secretary of State was required to look at each separate parcel of land, as originally acquired, and to consider whether each parcel had been materially changed.
Held: The application was dismissed.
Rule 9 required a consideration of the whole of the land to be disposed of. “It” referred to all the land owned by all of the former owners. The applicant had confused the effect of the rule with the conditions for its application. Although the purpose of the rule was to provide former owners with an opportunity to repurchase land, it did not provide for a separate consideration of whether each parcel of land had materially changed.
Guy Roots QC and Philip Petchey (instructed by Norton Rose) appeared for the applicants; David Elvin QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.
Sarah Addenbrooke
