Site compulsorily acquired by council for development — Required for proper planning of the area — Adjoining land transferred to applicants — Covenant by council not to obstruct light of transferred land — Council subsequently redeveloping site — Interference with light to adjoining land — Applicants arguing that their permission required — High Court holding that council authorised by statute to override third party rights — Application dismissed
In 1954 part of the appeal site known as redevelopment unit 4 in the City of London was compulsorily acquired by MCCL (“the council”), the first respondents, pursuant to section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. The purchase followed a resolution that the land was “immediately necessary in the interests of the proper planning of the area”. The remaining part of the site was acquired pursuant to purchase notices under section 19 of the 1947 Act. In 1962 a building lease of the land was granted to RLM, the second respondent, who proceeded to construct Shelley House on the site.
On September 12 1969 the council granted to the applicants land known as “The Hall”, which was separated from the site by London Wall and St Olave’s Churchyard. By the deed of transfer the council covenanted with the applicants “not to erect or suffer to be erected anything which shall cause any obstruction of the light or air passing through any of the windows of the Hall”. The council still owned the freehold of the site and decided to redevelop Shelley House for commercial purposes. On December 22 1995 the council entered into an agreement with RLM for the demolition of Shelley House and for redevelopment of the site. Planning permission was granted for that purpose. The redevelopment, which comprised the building of a new Shelley House, would interfere with the right to light enjoyed by the Hall. The applicants applied to the court for a ruling that section 237(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 did not authorise such interference so that the applicants’ consent was required.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. The statutory objective underlying section 237 was that, provided that work was done in accordance with planning permission, and subject to payment of compensation, a local authority should be permitted to develop their land in the manner in which they, acting bona fide, considered would best serve the public interest. To that end a local authority should be permitted to interfere with third party rights.
2. In order to attract the immunity conferred by the subsection, the work done (whether by the local authority or the person deriving title under it) must be related in some way to the planning purposes for which the land was acquired.
3. It was necessary to look at the terms of the compulsory purchase order itself rather than to the position that preceded it, to determine the purpose for which the land was acquired.
4. In the absence of words making it clear that the council acquired the site only for the purposes of carrying out the development that was immediately necessary at the date of acquisition, and no subsequent redevelopment, the purposes for which the site was acquired were not to be construed in that restricted manner.
5. The words of the statute clearly authorised a local authority to override third party rights, even where those rights were conferred by them.
John Howell QC and Jonathan Karas (instructed by Speechley Bircham) appeared for the applicants; Jeremy Sullivan QC and Malcolm Spence QC (instructed by Cannings Connolly) appeared for the respondents.
