Inspector recommending making of compulsory purchase order but expressing concern about potential infringement of claimants’ rights under Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights — Secretary of State confirming order with no provision against future infringement — Claim to quash compulsory purchase order rejected
Since 1989, the claimants had occupied agricultural land as an unofficial gypsy caravan site. The second defendant council made several unsuccessful attempts to secure proper planning control over the site, and finally made it the subject of a compulsory purchase order. A public inquiry was subsequently held. The inspector recommended that the compulsory purchase order be made, although he expressed concern that to do so might infringe the claimants’ rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Secretary of State advised the council that he would accept the inspector’s recommendation to grant the order provided that the council agreed to delay execution for six months, to enable the claimants to find alternative accommodation. The council submitted such an undertaking, and the Secretary of State confirmed the order.
The claimants brought proceedings, under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, to have the order quashed. They maintained that, in requesting a written undertaking from the council, the Secretary of State had taken action independent of his inspector and had incorporated the issue of the potential infringement of the claimants’ rights under Article 8 into the decision-making process. Having made the potential infringement a relevant factor in his decision, they contended that he had failed fully to determine the consequences of such infringement or to provide safeguards against it.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The sole issue was whether the Secretary of State had erred in law in respect of his decision on the compulsory purchase order by failing to safeguard against future possible infringements of the claimants’ human rights under Article 8. The Secretary of State had done no more than agree with the findings of his inspector, and it was not necessary for him to draw conclusions about the council’s subsequent actions or how those actions might impinge upon the claimant’s human rights. The Secretary of State was not obliged to make contingency plans upon a speculative basis. His decision was discretionary and he had been entitled to decide as he had.
David Watkinson (instructed by Community Law Partnership, of Birmingham) appeared for the first and third claimants; John Litton (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Robert McCracken (instructed by the solicitor to Sedgemoor District Council) appeared for the second defendants; the second claimant did not appear and was not represented.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
