Compulsory purchase order – Validity – Section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 – First defendant secretary of state approving compulsory purchase order made by second defendant local authority to acquire claimants’ land – Claimants questioning validity of decisions and seeking suspension of order – Whether inspector making procedural or legal error – Claim dismissed
The first claimant purchased the site of a former amusement park in Margate in 2005. In 2011, the second defendant local authority made a compulsory purchase order to acquire the site. The first defendant secretary of state accepted the report of a planning inspector and confirmed the order. The claimants, who were all “persons aggrieved” by the order, sought to challenge that decision by an application under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.
They contended, inter alia, that the inspector had erred in his findings that the second defendants had the necessary funding in place to carry out all of the works and as to the operational viability of the proposals and in finding that it was necessary for the second defendants to acquire all the land. Moreover he had given a material misdirection with respect to a cinema on the site and failed to show an even handed approach. Furthermore, there had been an unwarranted and disproportionate interference with the claimants’ rights under article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
(1) In considering a challenge to the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order the court could only interfere on the ground that the minister had gone outside his statutory powers or that any statutory requirement had not been complied with. The court could interfere with the minister’s decision if he had acted on no evidence; or if he had come to a conclusion to which on the evidence he could not reasonably come; or if he had given a wrong interpretation to the words of the statute; or if he had taken into consideration matters which he ought not to have taken into account or had otherwise gone wrong in law. A challenge under section 23 of the 1981 Act was not an opportunity for a review of the merits of an inspector’s decision. It was simply an opportunity to see whether there had been any procedural or legal error in the process of confirmation: Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1965] 31 WLR 1320, Seddon Properties v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) 42 P & CR 26, Prest v Secretary of State for Wales [1982] 266 EG 527, Simplex GE (Holdings) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1988] 3 PLR 25, South Somerset District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 2 EGLR 203; [1993] 26 EG 121, Clarke Homes v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] EGCS 29; (1993) 66 P & CR 263, R (Newsmith Stainless Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 74; [2001] PLSCS 30, R (James Powell and Others) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2007] EWHC 2051 (Admin), Proudfoot Properties v Secretary of State [2012] EWHC 2043 (Admin); [2012] PLSCS 173 considered.
(2) In the present case, reading the decision letter and the inspector’s report as a whole, as the court was required to do and, bearing in mind that reasons could be briefly stated and that the second defendants needed to show only a general indication of funding intentions, the court was not satisfied that the claimants had established that there was any failure on the part of the inspector to give adequate reasons. There had been no lack of clarity as to what the inspector concluded. The conclusions were ones reasonably open to him on the evidence before him and could be inferred from the history of the scheme and the nature and details of the successful funding bid applications and the nature of the funding organisations.
(3) In all the circumstances, there was no basis for concluding that the inspector had made any errors of law. Against the background of the information available to him, the inspector’s conclusion could not be faulted and was a planning judgment lawfully open to him on the available evidence. The inspector’s findings amounted to a correct exercise of his planning judgment and did not demonstrate any inconsistent or unfair approach.
(4) Furthermore, read as a whole, the decision letter and the inspector’s report, in accepting the case for compulsory purchase made by the second defendants, demonstrated that there was a compelling case for compulsory purchase in the public interest which balanced against the private rights of the claimants. Accordingly, there was no disproportionate interference with the claimants’ human rights.
Richard Glover QC (instructed by Fladgate LLP) appeared for the claimants; David Forsdick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Martin Edwards (instructed by Trowers and Hamlins LLP) appeared for the second defendants.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
Margate Town Centre and others v Secretary of State for Local Government and another
Compulsory purchase order – Validity – Section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 – First defendant secretary of state approving compulsory purchase order made by second defendant local authority to acquire claimants’ land – Claimants questioning validity of decisions and seeking suspension of order – Whether inspector making procedural or legal error – Claim dismissedThe first claimant purchased the site of a former amusement park in Margate in 2005. In 2011, the second defendant local authority made a compulsory purchase order to acquire the site. The first defendant secretary of state accepted the report of a planning inspector and confirmed the order. The claimants, who were all “persons aggrieved” by the order, sought to challenge that decision by an application under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.They contended, inter alia, that the inspector had erred in his findings that the second defendants had the necessary funding in place to carry out all of the works and as to the operational viability of the proposals and in finding that it was necessary for the second defendants to acquire all the land. Moreover he had given a material misdirection with respect to a cinema on the site and failed to show an even handed approach. Furthermore, there had been an unwarranted and disproportionate interference with the claimants’ rights under article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.Held: The claim was dismissed. (1) In considering a challenge to the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order the court could only interfere on the ground that the minister had gone outside his statutory powers or that any statutory requirement had not been complied with. The court could interfere with the minister’s decision if he had acted on no evidence; or if he had come to a conclusion to which on the evidence he could not reasonably come; or if he had given a wrong interpretation to the words of the statute; or if he had taken into consideration matters which he ought not to have taken into account or had otherwise gone wrong in law. A challenge under section 23 of the 1981 Act was not an opportunity for a review of the merits of an inspector’s decision. It was simply an opportunity to see whether there had been any procedural or legal error in the process of confirmation: Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1965] 31 WLR 1320, Seddon Properties v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) 42 P & CR 26, Prest v Secretary of State for Wales [1982] 266 EG 527, Simplex GE (Holdings) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1988] 3 PLR 25, South Somerset District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 2 EGLR 203; [1993] 26 EG 121, Clarke Homes v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] EGCS 29; (1993) 66 P & CR 263, R (Newsmith Stainless Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 74; [2001] PLSCS 30, R (James Powell and Others) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2007] EWHC 2051 (Admin), Proudfoot Properties v Secretary of State [2012] EWHC 2043 (Admin); [2012] PLSCS 173 considered.(2) In the present case, reading the decision letter and the inspector’s report as a whole, as the court was required to do and, bearing in mind that reasons could be briefly stated and that the second defendants needed to show only a general indication of funding intentions, the court was not satisfied that the claimants had established that there was any failure on the part of the inspector to give adequate reasons. There had been no lack of clarity as to what the inspector concluded. The conclusions were ones reasonably open to him on the evidence before him and could be inferred from the history of the scheme and the nature and details of the successful funding bid applications and the nature of the funding organisations.(3) In all the circumstances, there was no basis for concluding that the inspector had made any errors of law. Against the background of the information available to him, the inspector’s conclusion could not be faulted and was a planning judgment lawfully open to him on the available evidence. The inspector’s findings amounted to a correct exercise of his planning judgment and did not demonstrate any inconsistent or unfair approach.(4) Furthermore, read as a whole, the decision letter and the inspector’s report, in accepting the case for compulsory purchase made by the second defendants, demonstrated that there was a compelling case for compulsory purchase in the public interest which balanced against the private rights of the claimants. Accordingly, there was no disproportionate interference with the claimants’ human rights.Richard Glover QC (instructed by Fladgate LLP) appeared for the claimants; David Forsdick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Martin Edwards (instructed by Trowers and Hamlins LLP) appeared for the second defendants.Eileen O’Grady, barrister
