Monen v Secretary Of State For Transport, Local Government & Regions & Anor

Compulsory acquisition under section 226(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may be justified by land whose condition adversely affects local amenity, including where the land is unsafe, unsightly, attracts vandals or has an overgrown garden affecting neighbouring property. Such matters are capable of amounting to a purpose necessary in the interests of the proper planning of the area. Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed challenge discloses no arguable error of law.

The applicant owned and occupied a house which the local authority sought compulsorily to acquire. Following a public inquiry, an inspector found that the property was an eyesore, attracted vandals, was physically unsafe, was frequently vacant and had an overgrown garden encroaching on the highway. Turner J rejected the applicant’s statutory appeal, holding that the identified purpose was a proper planning purpose.

The applicant sought an adjournment to obtain legal advice and permission to appeal. The central issue was whether the facts found by the inspector were capable of justifying compulsory acquisition under section 226(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

1. Applications refused. Lord Justice Sedley refused both the application for an adjournment and permission to appeal.
2. The proposed appeal had no arguable legal basis. The facts found by the inspector were capable of justifying compulsory acquisition under section 226(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A property’s condition may adversely affect the amenity and value of neighbouring houses and may therefore constitute a purpose necessary in the interests of the proper planning of the area.
3. The reasoning was reinforced by section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which recognises the planning relevance of land whose condition adversely affects the amenity of an area. The decision in Miles v Secretary of State for the Environment was the nearest authority and supported the same conclusion.
4. There was no sufficient reason to adjourn the permission application merely to enable the applicant to obtain further legal advice. The court also noted that the local authority might refrain from enforcing the compulsory purchase order if the premises were satisfactorily improved, but that possibility did not create a ground of appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Applications for an adjournment and permission to appeal were refused.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Turner J rejected the statutory appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision following the public inquiry.