Compulsory purchase order — Construction of bypass — Secretary of state confirming order — Whether secretary of state required to enquire as to whether planning permission for bypass current — Whether requirement to consult on question of bypass permission — Claim dismissed
The first defendant secretary of state confirmed a compulsory purchase order made by the second defendant council in respect of the construction of a bypass, for which planning permission had previously been granted. The claimant opposed the bypass, primarily on grounds of loss of public open space. He was one of several petitioners who had presented objections at a hearing before a joint parliamentary committee. Following confirmation of the order, he brought proceedings, under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, challenging the first defendant’s decision.
The claimant contended that the first defendant: (i) had taken an irrational approach when considering the provision of additional open space; (ii) should not have rendered the order operative without first satisfying himself planning permission for the bypass had been, or remained capable of being, implemented; and (iii) should have consulted the petitioners with regard to the planning permission. He argued that had the first defendant enquired as to the status of the planning permission, he would have concluded that it had lapsed because the development carried out under it did not comply with its terms.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The first defendant had not taken irrelevant considerations into account when dealing with open space provision and he had been entitled to reach the decision that he had. He had not been obliged to enquire into the current status of the bypass permission where nobody had suggested to him that it had lapsed and it did not affect the matters of which he remained to be satisfied prior to making the order operative. Neither the law nor logic required such enquiries as a necessary legal prerequisite to making the order operative. In accordance with that reasoning, the first defendant had not been obliged to consult with, or to seek the views of, the petitioners in respect of the bypass permission. In any event, the current status of the permission was a matter of law upon which consultation would not have been appropriate.
Paul Brown (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appeared for the claimant; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Ian Dove QC and Satnam Choongh (instructed by the legal department of Stoke-on-Trent City Council) appeared for the second defendants.
Sally Dobson, barrister
