Moggridge & Anor v National Assembly for Wales & Anor

A compulsory purchase and side roads confirmation may be lawful where a scheme has several connected public purposes. Failure of a stated primary purpose does not invalidate the orders if an independently sufficient secondary purpose is established and the statutory powers cover the works. The objectors must have had a fair opportunity to address that purpose and the public-interest balance.

A confirmation decision need not determine in advance whether a separate protected-species derogation licence will be granted. It must have regard to the Habitats Directive under regulation 3(4) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994, while leaving the licensing judgment unfettered for the later statutory stage.

The claimants sought judicial review of compulsory purchase and side roads orders for the Sirhowy Enterprise Way. The orders had been made by Caerphilly County Borough Council and confirmed by the National Assembly for Wales after a public inquiry.

The inspector rejected regeneration of the Oakdale Business Park as the primary justification, but found that reducing traffic in Blackwood town centre supplied a compelling public-interest justification. The claimants argued that the secondary purpose could not support the orders, that they had been denied a fair opportunity to challenge it, and that confirmation was unlawful because no bat-disturbance licence had yet been granted. The central issues were whether the orders could be confirmed on the alternative purpose and whether the confirmation process complied with the protected-species regime.

1. The claim was dismissed. The orders were not irrational or unlawful merely because the principal purpose identified by the council was not justified. The scheme had several interlocking objectives, including traffic reduction and economic and environmental benefits. The labels “primary” and “secondary” were not determinative. The bypass had independent and powerful public advantages, and the inspector was entitled to advise confirmation on the basis of the traffic-reduction purpose alone (paras 11–15).
2. The Oakdale link road fell within section 14(1)(a)(ii) of the Highways Act 1980. It was a new highway connected with the construction of the classified bypass and provided access which the existing network did not provide. The independent justification for improved traffic flow also supported confirmation of the side roads order (paras 15–18).
3. There was no procedural unfairness. The council’s documents identified both economic regeneration and traffic diversion as purposes, and the objectors’ evidence and objections showed that they had addressed the necessity and justification of the bypass, including the possibility that the business-park purpose might fail. They had therefore had a fair opportunity to address the relevant public-interest balance (paras 19–20).
4. The minister complied with regulation 3(4) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. She expressly considered Articles 12 and 16 of the Habitats Directive, recognised that construction involving protected bats would require a regulation 44 licence, and preserved the later licensing discretion. Confirmation of land-acquisition orders did not itself authorise disturbance, deterioration or destruction of protected habitats, nor did it require a prediction that the licence would be granted (paras 21–36).
5. The confirmation function concerned whether compulsory acquisition served the public interest, rather than whether the development was certain to proceed. The risk that a licence might later be refused therefore did not make confirmation unlawful. The minister acted lawfully and rationally in confirming both orders. The first respondent was awarded summary costs of £6,887.75; no second set of legal costs was ordered (paras 35–36, 51–55).