Land compulsorily purchased — Held from 1975 for a new town — Land passed to the Commission for disposal — Negotiations with previous owner — Guidelines on disposal of surplus land — “Crichel Down” principle — Whether statutory duty to obtain enhancement of value overrides guidelines — Whether decision to put land out to tender can be reviewed
In November 1975 an area of land belonging to the applicants, and adjoining further land owned by them, was compulsorily purchased in connection with the development of a new town nearby. The subject land remained as agricultural land until the development corporation decided in August 1985 that it should be disposed of as surplus to their requirements. The applicants, as the previous owners, were approached and negotiations commenced for the sale to them of the land. Planning permission for some development of the land became a possibility, and negotiations were deferred in 1986; planning permission “in principle” was issued in February 1987.
Meanwhile, under the provisions of sections 35 — 36 of the New Towns Act 1981, the assets and land, including the subject land, passed from the relevant development corporation to the respondents, the Commission for the New Towns. The commission believed it had a duty to obtain the best price for the land and that this could only be properly done by putting the land up for sale by tender. The applicants sought judicial review of this decision on the ground that the commission had not properly followed Department of the Environment guidelines issued in 1983 on the disposal of surplus land, and had not allowed the applicants, as previous owners, to repurchase the land. The guidelines advise that the previous owner of land being disposed of as surplus should “generally” get the first chance to repurchase at a price to be agreed through the district valuer so long as there has been no material change in its character in the meantime. The New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985 replaced section 36(2) of the New Towns Act 1981, which now placed an obligation on the commission in relation to surplus land in the following terms: “until disposal, the maintenance and enhancement of the value of the land held and the return obtained from it”. But the Act allows for ministerial consent to sales otherwise not at the best price.
Held That the application for judicial review must be dismissed. The commission was entitled to decide that the only way of finding out the best price was to go out to tender, and the applicants could only expect that the commission would have regard to the department’s guidelines, but was not bound by them. There was also no duty on the commission to seek a consent of the Secretary of State to a specific sale to the applicants to satisfy their expectations.
R v Doncaster MBC, ex parte Brain
(1986) 85 LGR 233 and
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Ruddock [1987] 2 All ER 518 considered.
Robert Carnwath QC and David Holgate (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) appeared for the applicants; and Michael Barnes QC and John Furber (instructed by D J Freeman & Co) appeared for the respondents.
