Mohammed v Newcastle Upon Tyne & Anor

A challenge to a compulsory purchase order must identify an arguable error of law or procedure. The Administrative Court will not rehear the planning merits or substitute its own planning judgment for that of the inspector. An inspector may conclude that development is likely to proceed in a planned and comprehensive manner without requiring complete certainty, provided the conclusion is supported by the evidence. Where the decision-maker has considered the relevant planning matters and human-rights implications, and reached a legally available judgment, the court will not interfere.

The claimants challenged the Secretary of State’s decision of 5 June 2003 confirming a compulsory purchase order made by the Council of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne. Their properties were required for phase 4B of a redevelopment scheme. They argued that the development was not genuinely comprehensive, that existing businesses could remain or be refurbished, and that acquisition was contrary to the public interest and Article 1 of the First Protocol.

The claimants also sought an adjournment because one claimant was ill and the other was relying on him to present the case. The central issues were whether the claim disclosed an arguable error of law or procedure and whether an adjournment should be granted.

1. Claim dismissed. The grounds and supporting letter merely sought to reargue the merits of the compulsory purchase order. They identified no arguable error of law or procedure by the Secretary of State.
2. The inspector had considered the claimants’ properties, the viability and possible relocation of the businesses, the likelihood of comprehensive development, and the relevant planning considerations. He was entitled, having heard the evidence, to form the planning judgment that the proposed development was likely to proceed in a planned and comprehensive manner.
3. Complete certainty that development would proceed was not required. Provisional development agreements, available funding and the permissions already granted provided a sufficient evidential basis for the inspector’s conclusion. The Secretary of State was entitled to accept that conclusion.
4. The Secretary of State had expressly considered Article 1 of the First Protocol and was satisfied that a fair balance had been struck between the public interest and the property owners’ and lessees’ rights. No legal error was shown in that assessment.
5. The adjournment was refused. Although the court accepted that Mr Offord was ill and unable to attend, Mr Mohammed remained available, there was no adequate explanation for his inability to obtain representation, and the claimants had failed to comply with the CPR and Practice Direction. The court noted the importance of dealing promptly with the challenge, particularly given the funding window for the development.
6. The claimants were ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £2,250, subject to any representations on costs within seven days. A second costs order was refused.