Council wishing to appropriate land used as recreational ground for development – Intention of appropriation advertised – Council not considering objections relating to whether land needed for recreational ground – Council deciding to appropriate land – Whether obligation to consider “any” objections to the proposed appropriation complied with – Decision quashed
The council proposed to appropriate land for development purposes pursuant to section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972 as an arts centre with associated development. The land was close to the town centre of Bromsgrove and was a recreational ground. It had been acquired from the Church Commissioners in 1911 and 1912 and was subject to covenants establishing open space and a public recreation ground. Following a council meeting it was declared that the land was not required for the purpose it was held, namely as a recreational ground. The council’s “intention to appropriate the land” was first advertised on January 29 1997. Subsequently the policy and resources committee, after advise from the district secretary, resolved to appropriate the land. Under section 122 of the 1972 Act the general power to appropriate land without consent was restricted in the case of “open space” by an amendment enacted in 1980 adding sub-section (2A) which required the council to advertise “notice of their intention to do so” and “to consider any objection to the proposed appropriation which may be made to them”. The applicants sought judicial review of the committee’s decision. It was claimed that the committee had been in effect advised that the objections which the committee had to consider did not extend to whether or not the land was “needed” for its original purpose because that had already been decided. It was submitted that it was fundamental to the power of appropriation that the land should no longer be “required” for the purpose for which it was held immediately before the appropriation, and it was at that stage that any objections should be considered.
Held The application was allowed.
1. The phrase “any objection” in section 2A of the amendment to the 1980 Act was apt to include any objection to the issue as to whether to appropriate the land, and therefore that included whether the land was “required” for the purpose for which it was held immediately before the appropriation.
2. Accordingly, the council had to consider all objections including those which related to the existing use of the land. The committee had considered the objections on the basis that certain matters were irrelevant and therefore the only appropriate course was to quash the committee’s decision so that it could be reconsidered.
Barry Payton and Philip Norman (instructed by Wall James & Davies, of Stourbridge) appeared for the appellants; Elizabeth Appleby QC and Thomas Hill (instructed by solicitor to Bromsgrove District Council) appeared for the respondents.
