In Pritchett v Crossrail Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 317 the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether Crossrail had correctly applied its land disposal policy when refusing to offer a landowner the opportunity to buy back surplus land originally acquired compulsorily.
The appellant’s flat was compulsorily acquired under Crossrail Act 2008 powers (for construction of the new Tottenham Court Road Station ticket hall) and demolished. The resulting surplus surface site was a composite of other interests also acquired by CPO. The Crichel Down Rules require, as a matter of policy, that former owners are given a first refusal of the option to re-acquire the land at market value.
The High Court rejected the appellant’s challenge to Crossrail’s decision to offer the site for disposal on the open market, based on the interpretation of its own supplemental land disposal policy (part of which stated that “If there are competing bids for a site from former owners, it will be disposed of on the open market”). The appellant expressed an interest, as did two other former owners. Crossrail decided to offer the site on the open market. The appellant claimed that two “expressions of interest” did not make “competing bids” and the principles of the Crichel Down Rules would be undermined by applying the policy in that way.
Dismissing the appeal against Ouseley J’s High Court judgment, the Court of Appeal held that the logic of treating multiple expressions of interests as “competing bids” under the policy was unassailable. It was also parallel to the position under the Crichel Down Rules (where composite sites for development are subject to open market disposal where there are competing bids). The court also noted that the policy was supplemental to the Crichel Down Rules, which themselves do not apply in cases where the land in question has materially changed in character. The surface site had significanrly changed and none of the interested parties would be stepping back into a property of the character they had previously owned (or where boundaries could sensibly be re-approximated). They would instead be getting the opportunity of commercial benefit from a potential new development of the whole site of an entirely different character.
Roy Pinnock is a partner in the planning and public law team at Dentons
