Acquisition of land — Redevelopment — Whether inspector complied with relevant requirement — Whether appellant prejudiced by lack of reasons — Appeal dismissed
Under the procedure specified in Part II of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, a compulsory purchase order made by Tyne & Wear Development Corporation (TWDC) was submitted to and confirmed by the confirming authority, in this case the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Energy and Transport. The order was in respect of an area known as East Quayside on the north bank of the River Tyne near to and east of the centre of Newcastle and immediately downstream of the Tyne Bridge. It was seen as an area with a significant potential for redevelopment. A competition was held and the winning proposal was submitted by Newcastle Quayside Developments plc (NQD). Inter alia, the inspector took account of a “city grant” under Part III of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 whereby the Secretary of State for the Environment supported private-sector projects in urban development areas where they would be unable to proceed because costs exceeded the capital value of the project. At the inquiry, L advanced the argument that his scheme for his own land within the development area did not require any grant and would be privately funded with Swiss finance.
L applied unsuccessfully to quash the order in so far as it related to land owned by him so that he could develop it in accordance with a scheme of his own. The case came before the Court of Appeal, where L argued that a “relevant requirement” under section 23(3)(a) of the 1981 Act had not been complied with because no sufficient reasons were given by the inspector, or the Secretaries of State in confirming the compulsory purchase order, for rejecting L’s arguments that the commercial feasibility of the NQD proposals would not be jeopardised if L’s land were excluded from the order. The reasons given for the inspector’s recommendation and hence for the confirmation of the order were criticised as being inadequate in so far as they gave no reason for the rejection of L’s arguments.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The duty to give reasons for a decision to confirm a compulsory purchase order which was imposed by rule 10 of the Compulsory Purchase by Public Authorities (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1976 was performed by giving reasons which were proper, intelligible and adequate: see Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc [1985] AC 661. In Save Britain’s Heritage v No 1 Poultry Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 151; [1991] 3 PLR 50 it was held that an alleged deficiency of reasons would afford a ground for quashing a decision only if the court were satisfied that the interests of the applicant had been “substantially prejudiced…”.
2. In the instant case, it was submitted by L that the failure to give a reason for rejecting his argument raised a substantial doubt as to whether the Secretaries of State took the possibility of reallocation of grant into account. However, the court’s reading of the inspector’s conclusions was that the non-financial objections to the alternative proposals had of themselves a strength which inevitably led to the rejection of L’s schemes. The rejection on those grounds simultaneously destroyed the only premise on which the possibility of grant reallocation could have arisen. In that circumstance it could not be said that, as a consequence of the failure to address L’s argument in terms, there was any room for substantial doubt as to whether the confirmation was not empowered because of a failure to have regard to a relevant consideration.
Viscount Colville QC and Patrick Clarkson QC (instructed by Davis Frankel & Mead) appeared for Mr Landau; David Mole QC and Nicholas Huskinson (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) appeared for Tyne & Wear Development Corporation; and Robert Carnwath QC and Alison Foster (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Energy and Transport.
