The Communities Secretary was wrong to confirm a compulsory purchase order vital to plans for Tottenham Hotspur football club’s new stadium, because the London Borough of Haringey had no authority to make it, and major changes were being planned of which he had not been informed, a judge was today told.
Christopher Lockhart Mummery, representing landowner Archway Sheet Metal Works, which faces losing its site under the CPO, argued that it was not lawfully made in March 2012 because earlier pre-conditions set down by the borough’s cabinet had not been met. And he claimed that Haringey and Spurs had discussed substantial alterations to the stadium and a wider development scheme without informing the secretary of state.
As a result, Archway seeks to persuade Dove J to quash the subsequent decision of the communities secretary to confirm the CPO last July.
The secretary of state said in his decision letter that, as the authority’s resolution was not challenged at the time, he considered that the CPO was lawfully made.
But Mr Lockhart-Mummery argued that this was a “clear misdirection,” and that the conclusion could not follow from the premise.
He said that his client could lawfully now challenge the CPO, on the ground that the acquiring authority had no authority to make it, under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. He added that it was neither necessary nor practical to challenge the earlier decision, as only in exceptional circumstances can a preliminary resolution to make a CPO be susceptible to judicial review.
He also argued that the secretary of state failed to deal with a significant issue raised by Archway, namely the lack of any obligation on Tottenham Hotspur to deliver major parts of the wider Northumberland Park Development (NPD) scheme around the stadium.
Archway claims there is evidence of changes to the proposal, some of them radical, that indicate that the club may no longer be intending to develop the NDP scheme as consented.
In documents before the court, Mr Lockhart-Mummery claims that it has now been revealed that discussions took place between the club and Haringey relating to “substantial changes” in the scheme in the first half of 2014, before the decision letter was issued. These, he claims, include an increase in stadium capacity by 5,000, an updated stadium design, an increase in residential development, a new gym and fitness centre, a new hotel, as well as 60,000 square feet of commercial development space.
But he alleges that they failed to draw these “major changes” to the Secretary of State’s attention prior to his decision.
In written arguments on behalf of the club, Christopher Katkowski QC says that, by the time the Secretary of State made his decision, he knew that Tottenham Hotspur was contemplating possible changes to the permitted redevelopment scheme, and whether to make a planning application for them.
But he says that none of this made a “jot of difference” to the decision he had to make, whether to confirm the CPO, and that, had the club and council kept him abreast of their discussions it could not be said that this might have altered his decision.
He says that there is “more than a touch of the melodramatic” about the way Archway summarise the discussions between the club and Haringey, and that the reality is “much more prosaic” – that those discussions were exploratory and tentative about potential options and possible changes, none of which have yet led to a planning application.
In addition, he argued that it was not wrong in law for the secretary of state to take into account that no challenge had been made to Haringey’s 2012 decision to make the CPO.
Dove J is expected to reserve his decision in the case.
The CPO was approved last July for the Northumberland Park Development (NPD) scheme, phase 2 of which includes the new 56,250 capacity stadium for Spurs, for which planning permission was secured in 2011.
Tottenham hopes to move into the new stadium in time for the 2018/19 season.
Archway Sheet Metal Works Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Planning Court (Dove J) 17 February 2014
