Notices to treat — Validity — Claimants agreeing to vacate land needed for rail link on basis that alternative land provided — Claimants relocating to replacement site — Notices to treat issued in respect of replacement site — Whether notices ultra vires — Whether legitimate expectation that compulsory purchase powers would not be exercised in relation to replacement site — Claim dismissed
The defendant Secretary of State required land occupied by the claimants for the purposes of constructing a high-speed rail link in connection with the Channel Tunnel. Compulsory acquisition was authorised by section 4(1) of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, which permitted acquisitions of such land “as may be required” for the works. The interested party, URN, was the nominated undertaker under that Act. The claimants used their land, which was part of the Stratford railway lands, as a refuelling facility. In 1997, URN assured them that a permanent replacement would be provided at a nearby site (the Temple Meads site).
Protracted negotiations took place between the claimants, the defendant and URN with a view to reaching an agreement under which the claimants would vacate the land in return for a lease of the Temple Meads site. The lease was to include “lift and shift” provisions, whereby the claimants could be required to relinquish the site for development so long as suitable alternative premises were provided. In July 2001, the claimants agreed to vacate their land and occupy the Temple Meads site, under licence, pending the completion of a lease.
By December 2001, the terms of the lease had still not been agreed, and the Temple Meads site was being considered as a possible Eurostar depot. The five-year period provided by the 1996 Act in which the defendant could serve a notice to treat was about to expire; so he therefore served three notices to treat in respect of the Temple Meads site in order to retain his compulsory purchase powers over it.
The claimants brought judicial review proceedings to quash the notices on the grounds that they were: (i) ultra vires, in that the Temple Meads site was not at that time “required” within the meaning of section 4(1); and (ii) served in breach of a legitimate expectation or contract arising by implication from various documents, including URN’s 1997 undertaking, and letters forming part of the lease negotiations.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
1. The words “as may be required” in section 4(1) meant exactly that. The rail link was an important long-term infrastructure project, and it was unlikely that parliament would have intended that the Secretary of State had to be in a position to specify, within the five-year time limit, the land that would definitely be required, as opposed to land that might be required. He was entitled to acquire land that might be needed in the future, and had properly exercised that power in order to safeguard the provision of the Eurostar depot. The notices to treat were not, therefore, ultra vires.
2. Although the 1997 undertaking referred to the provision of a “permanent” replacement site for the refuelling facility, it could not mean permanent in the sense of “incapable of relocation”, because both sides were agreed that there were to be “lift and shift” provisions in the lease of the Temple Meads site, enabling the Secretary of State to relocate the claimants in the future. Although the Secretary of State had accepted the commitment not to relocate outside the Stratford railway lands, it had not been intended that the refuelling facility should be permanently located at the Temple Meads site. Even assuming that a public authority, vested with statutory powers, could, by implication, bind itself not to exercise those powers, clear and compelling evidence would be required before a court could find that it had done so. It was not possible in the present case to imply a legal expectation and/or a binding contractual undertaking that the Secretary of State would not exercise his compulsory purchase powers in respect of the Temple Meads site. Moreover, any concessions made by the Secretary of State in the course of the lease negotiations were part and parcel of those negotiations, and were dependent upon the successful completion of a lease. They did not give rise to a legitimate expectation of the kind alleged: R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213 considered.
George Laurence QC and Nicholas Le Poidevin (instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell) appeared for the claimants; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Sally Dobson, barrister
