Sale of land — Educational purposes — Bids invited from applicants — Change of intention — Whether exercise of power to dispose of land involves policy consideration — Whether applicants had expectation of being considered — Application succeeded
The applicants provide for the educational needs of the orthodox Jewish community. In 1987 the respondent local authority resolved to sell off as surplus to their requirements the Mill Hill County High School. Tenders were invited for the whole or parts of the site, and the particulars stated that the council’s policies were that education sites should not be developed if they could continue to satisfy an education requirement but that, in the absence of receiving a suitable bid for educational purposes, there was a potential for residential development.
The applicants submitted their bid in three parts, for the whole property and also to identify separately the land and buildings suitable for education purposes and the other land suitable for development. The applicants heard no more until August 1988 when the respondents revealed that they had resolved in May 1988 that that part of the property suitable for educational purposes was to be disposed of for residential development. The applicants sought judicial review of that decision, contending that the respondents had given no consideration to their planning policy to retain the land for education purposes and that they, the applicants, had a legitimate expectation of their interests being properly considered.
Held The application was allowed.
A decision to exercise the power, in section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, to dispose of surplus land is reviewable by the courts. Although that statutory power is not expressly subject to any requirement to take into account the planning and other policies of the disposing authority, it is inherent in the exercise of such powers that the respondents should have given proper consideration to their stated planning policies on the disposal of surplus educational land. It was known that the applicants had come forward with an education use for part of the property, and no reasons had been given for disregarding that proposal, a proposal that would have fulfilled the declared policy.
Jeremy Sullivan QC and Joseph Harper (instructed by Nicholson Graham & Jones) appeared for the applicants; and Lionel Read QC and Simon Pickles (instructed by the solicitor to Barnet London Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
