Metropolitan green belt — Land occupied by gypsies or travellers — Planning authority considering development inappropriate — Enforcement notices without effect — Compulsory purchase orders served — Whether land “required” for planning purposes — Orders upheld
After issuing several enforcement notices, the council made a compulsory purchase order with respect to seven plots of land at Swallow Street, Iver, Buckinghamshire. The land, which was within the metropolitan green belt, was occupied by gypsies or travellers and there was a presumption against the development which had taken place. The inspector, while accepting that the development was unsuitable and inappropriate, recommended that the CPO should not be confirmed. However, the Secretary of State ruled against that recommendation and upheld the CPO. The owners of the plots appealed to the High Court, which dismissed their appeal [1990] 2 EGLR 191; [1990] 45 EG 113. They further appealed to the Court of Appeal on the ground, inter alia, that under section 112(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), the council could acquire compulsorily land in their area only if (a) it was “required in order to secure the carrying out of one or more of the following activities, namely, development, re-development or improvement”; or (b) it was “required for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interest of the proper planning of … the land”.
The judge, they contended, had wrongly considered the word “required” as meaning that the compulsory acquisition of the land was called for; it was something needed for the accomplishment of one of the purposes set out in that section. He had been wrong to hold that neither the local authority nor the Secretary of State had to go so far as to show that the compulsory acquisition of the land was indispensable to the carrying out of the planning purpose. They need not have tried to use all their other powers before resorting to compulsory purchase provided there was evidence on which they could conclude that, without the use of compulsory purchase powers, the planning purpose was unlikely to be achieved.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The word “requirement” in section 112(1)(a) was held to mean that it was “desirable” to acquire the land for the purposes stated: Company Developments (Property) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1978] JPL 107. With regard to “requirement” in section 112(1)(b), it connoted a “need” to acquire the land: R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Leicester City Council [1987] JPL 787.
2. In the present case, the Secretary of State had been satisfied from the evidence as to the two essential elements of section 112(1)(b): namely the necessity to achieve restoration for the proper planning of the area; and that the land was required by the council for that purpose. That approach accorded with the Leicester City Council case. The decision was not flawed.
Harry Sales (instructed by Lance Kent & Co, of Chesham) appeared for the appellants; Michael Kent (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; and Geoffrey Stephenson (instructed by the solicitor to South Bucks District Council) appeared for the respondent council.
