Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 156 (Jan)
Neutral Citation: [2008] EWHC 62 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court

Wilkie J

Representation Andrew Fraser-Urquhart (instructed by Davies Gore Lomax, Leeds) for the claimants.
  David Elvin QC and Graeme Keen (instructed by Linda Comstive, Blackburn) for the authority.
  John Litton (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
Judgment Dates: 24 January 2008


Compulsory purchase - Compulsory purchase order - Application to quash order - Failure adequately to consult on location of city academy - Financial viability - Availability of funding under 'housing market restructuring implementation agreement' to demolish homes on site for non-residential development - Whether failure to consult fatal to order - s 23 - s 226(1)(a).

The Case

The question for the Secretary of State was whether she was satisfied that there was a compelling case in the public interest for the a compulsory purchase order (CPO) to be made under s226(1)(a) of the . The fact that a decision had been taken at an initial stage without adequate consultation was a relevant factor. However, it was not determinative; the CPO procedure itself did not require consultation. The inspector was also bound to have regard to all other relevant matters, including the fact that outline planning permission had been obtained after a proper procedure, and, most importantly, the fact that all of the arguments concerning the adequacy of underlying scheme had been properly canvassed at the inquiry and considered. Furthermore, on the true construction of cl8.1.i.2 of a 'housing market restructuring implementation agreement', the word 'intended' had to refer to buildings that were already in existence that were acquired, and which were either demolished, converted or improved. Expenditure on buildings was therefore limited to those buildings that were intended for residential or mixed use, and would include spending on buildings currently used for such purposes, or buildings that had been so used at one stage, but that user had stopped. It followed that funding was available thereunder to demolish homes on a site for a non-residential development.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.