Alliance Spring Co Ltd. & Ors v The First Secretary of State

A compulsory purchase order may lawfully support a comprehensive regeneration scheme led by private development, including a replacement football stadium. The relevant authority must be satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest and must assess whether the acquisition is proportionate. The fact that a private developer triggers or substantially benefits from the scheme does not invalidate its public purpose. Planning considerations already addressed when planning permission was granted should not ordinarily be reconsidered unless there is fresh material or a change of circumstances. Once the authority properly concludes that all the land is required for the scheme, it need not assess each affected property owner separately for Convention proportionality purposes.

The claimants were statutory objectors to the London Borough of Islington (Ashburton Grove and Lough Road, Islington) Compulsory Purchase Order 2002. The Order was intended to facilitate a comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment including Arsenal Football Club’s new stadium, housing, business premises, community facilities and a replacement waste and recycling centre.

An Inspector recommended that the Order should not be confirmed. The Secretary of State disagreed, invited written representations, and confirmed the Order. The claimants challenged that decision under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, alleging errors of purpose, planning assessment, procedural fairness, viability assessment and Convention proportionality. The central issue was whether the Secretary of State had been entitled to find a compelling case in the public interest for confirming the Order.

1. Claim dismissed. The Secretary of State was entitled to confirm the compulsory purchase order.
2. Under section 226(1)(a) and (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the decision-maker had to consider whether the land was required for development or redevelopment and have regard to the development plan, existing planning permission and other planning considerations. The Secretary of State was entitled to form his own judgment on the Inspector’s findings and attach different weight to the relevant matters.
3. Planning considerations already determined when planning permission was granted should not ordinarily be revisited. A different view may be taken where there is fresh material or a change of circumstances, or where relevant matters were not previously considered. No such basis was established here.
4. The statutory requirement for a compelling case in the public interest was satisfied. A scheme may properly be led by private enterprise and may be triggered by the private developer’s need for a new facility. The Council was entitled to use that opportunity to promote what it regarded as comprehensive regeneration and redevelopment in the public interest.
5. The claimants’ rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights had been considered. Once the Secretary of State properly concluded that all the land was required for the scheme and that the acquisition was proportionate, it was unnecessary to conduct a separate proportionality assessment for each claimant.
6. The Secretary of State was entitled to accept that the scheme was deliverable despite criticisms of the information provided about viability. The advance indication that he was minded to depart from the Inspector’s recommendation was lawful and afforded a proper opportunity for further representations. There was no need to reopen the inquiry because he had not departed from the Inspector’s factual findings and the relevant individual hardship evidence had already been considered.
7. Section 226(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 confirms that the acquiring authority need not itself undertake the activity or achieve the purpose for which the compulsory acquisition is made.

The judgment records an earlier judicial review challenge to the planning permission, dismissed by Ouseley J in [2002] EWHC 2044 Admin. An application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal failed. The present claim was a first-instance challenge to the Secretary of State’s confirmation of the compulsory purchase order.