Council seeking to redevelop area of town centre – Council making compulsory purchase order authorising expropriation of claimant’s superstore – Claimant objecting – Inspector recommending order be confirmed – Secretary of State accepting inspector’s recommendation – Claimant seeking to quash order – Whether inspector failing to weigh claimant’s private property interest in the balance – Application dismissed
The second defendants (Wycombe District Council) wanted to redevelop the western area of Wycombe town centre, within which the claimant (Tesco) had a superstore. For that purpose, the council made a compulsory purchase order (CPO) that permitted, inter alia, the expropriation of the Tesco superstore. Tesco objected to the CPO and an inquiry was held.
In his report, the inspector concluded that although “Tesco plays an extremely important role in the town centre” and its removal would be a “drawback”, there was a compelling case, in the public interest, for the council to compulsorily acquire the land. He rejected Tesco’s contentions that the existing store should be retained, remodelled or refurbished or that it be replaced by a smaller, category 3 store and integrated within the redevelopment scheme. The inspector concluded that a reappraisal of the project would not result in any fundamental change in conclusion and recommended that the CPO be confirmed. The first defendant (the Secretary of State) agreed and accepted the inspector’s recommendations.
Tesco sought to quash the CPO under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. Tesco submitted that: (i) the inspector failed to properly address the question of whether it was necessary or justified to expropriate the land; (ii) while the inspector had focused upon the public interest he had failed to place Tesco’s private property interest in the balance; and (iii) the inspector erred in his consideration of alternatives to the scheme.
Held: The application was dismissed.
When making its objections, Tesco had dealt with the consequences of removing the superstore from the town centre as a whole, and not just with its own private commercial interest in retaining the store. The way in which Tesco presented its case meant that its own commercial interest was subsumed in the issue of the wider public interest. It was therefore properly considered by the inspector, who responded to the objections presented by Tesco.
The inspector was entitled to accept the evidence before him and reject Tesco’s contentions that a modified existing store or a smaller store could be incorporated into a revised scheme. It was for the inspector to decide whether the prospect of new evidence was a real one. He expressed his own view that reappraisal would serve no useful purpose. The inspector was entitled to conclude as he did and his reasoning was intelligible.
Robin Purchas QC and Joanna Clayton (instructed by Berwin Leighton) appeared for the claimant; Ashley Underwood (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Brian Ash QC and Richard Humphreys (instructed by the solicitor for Wycombe District Council) appeared for the second defendants.