Acquisition of land — Land acquired for regenerating urban area — Non-statutory statement making no reference to need for road-widening — Improvements in the area necessitating highway development — Whether CPO made for one purpose could be confirmed for a different purpose — Whether CPO could be confirmed for additional purpose — Whether road-widening part of larger purpose of regenerating area — CPO affirmed on appeal
The Tyne & Wear Development Corporation (“TWDC”), as the local planning authority for the designated area, made a compulsory purchase order under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 for the acquisition of land, east of Newcastle town centre, for urban redevelopment. The appellants’ premises were within an area of about 12 ha, known as East Quayside (designated plot 11) on the north bank of the River Tyne.
The adopted proposal was for a comprehensive redevelopment of the designated area, (comprising 2,375 ha), which involved, inter alia, the demolition of the buildings on plot 11 and replacement by new office buildings. The proposal had been put forward by Newcastle Quayside Developments, which was given outline planning permission for its project.
The compulsory purchase order referred to the compulsory purchase of land “for the purpose of securing the regeneration of part of the Tyne and Wear Development Area…” However, the non-statutory statement of reasons made no reference to the need to use part of East Quayside for road improvements. Subsequently Newcastle City Council accepted a recommendation that road-widening was a critical factor, and the TWDC, at the inquiry, put forward that plot 11 was required for that purpose. The retention of the appellants’ office building was therefore precluded. The inspector found as a fact that without the road improvements, the local authority would object to the regeneration proposals. The Secretaries of State for Environment, Energy and Transport accepted his conclusions and confirmed the order. At first instance the appellants’ application to quash the order was dismissed. They appealed.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. A compulsory purchase order made for one purpose could not lawfully be confirmed for another purpose or for an additional purpose to that for which it was made.
2. The only purpose for which a compulsory purchase order could lawfully be made and therefore confirmed was the statutory purpose for which the power of acquisition was given. In the present case the power was to achieve a single statutory object, namely the “regeneration of the area”.
3. The road improvements were necessary to achieve the regeneration of East Quayside and therefore the purpose for which the order was confirmed with regard to plot 11 was within the terms of the purpose for which it was made. The expressed and actual purpose had remained constant despite the change from office development to road improvement.
Malcolm Spence QC and Nicholas Nardecchia (instructed by the solicitor to Procter & Gamble Ltd) appeared for the appellants; Michael Barnes QC and Alison Foster (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretaries of State; and David Mole QC and Nicholas Huskinson (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) appeared for Tyne & Wear Development Corporation.
