Compulsory purchase order — Scheme of development corporation — Financial difficulties of appointed developer — Whether Secretaries of State failed to consider financial difficulties — Whether adequate reasons given for conclusions adverse to the applicant’s alternative scheme — Application by landowner dismissed
The applicant owns land within an area for which the second respondents, Tyne & Wear Development Corporation, have responsibilities and functions. In September 1988 the corporation appointed Newcastle Quayside Developments plc (“NQD”) as their preferred developers. On June 26 1989 the corporation made a compulsory purchase order stating at the time that their purpose was the regeneration of the area for which they had the benefit of an earlier planning permission. On July 3 1990 the first respondents, the Secretaries of State for Environment, Transport and Energy, confirmed the CPO.
The applicant, who had desired a role in the development of his own land, applied under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 to quash the CPO on the grounds that: (1) the first respondents failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the possible inability of NQD to implement the scheme; and (2) the inspector, in recommending confirmation of the order, failed to give adequate reasons for his conclusion that the applicant’s alternative scheme for his own land would prejudice the remaining part of the NQD scheme. After the public local inquiry, but before the ministers’ confirmation, the applicant’s solicitors informed the first respondents of the financial difficulties of the parent company of NQD.
Held The application was dismissed.
It had not been shown that the first respondents had not taken into account the information given to them about the financial difficulties of NQD and the possibility that it might not be able to undertake the scheme. Even if there had been a failure, the same decision would have been made as the prime concern of the inspector was with NQD’s scheme and not with NQD’s ability to implement the scheme. There was no reliance by the inspector that the involvement of NQD was material to his decision. The inspector had expressed a clear conclusion which enabled the applicant to understand on what grounds the recommendation to confirm was made and in sufficient detail to enable him to know what conclusions the inspector had reached: see Hope v Secretary of State for the Environment (1975) 240 EG 627 applied.
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (unreported July 27 1990) considered.
Lord Colville QC and Patrick Clarkson (instructed by Davis Frankel & Mead) appeared for the applicants; Robert Carnwath QC and Alison Foster (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondents; and David Mole QC and Nicholas Huskinson (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) appeared for the second respondents.
