Wainwright, R (on the application of) v North West Development Agency & Anor

A statutory challenge to a compulsory purchase order is not a rehearing on the merits. The claimant must identify a legal or procedural flaw in the decision under challenge. Fresh evidence or a better alternative which was not put to the decision-maker does not, without more, establish an error of law. Where an objector has had a fair opportunity to present objections at a public inquiry, the requirements of fairness are ordinarily satisfied. A decision-maker may prefer a proposed route, land-take or acquisition method on planning or factual grounds where the decision discloses no legal error. A regional development agency may compulsorily acquire land, rather than merely rights over it, where full title is reasonably considered necessary to implement construction works and the wider development scheme.

The claimant challenged the Secretary of State’s confirmation of the Kingsway Business Park compulsory purchase order insofar as it affected his land. The order included plots required for a replacement footpath following the closure of an underpass. An inspector upheld the claimant’s objection only to the extent that the proposed land-take was excessive and recommended modification.

The Secretary of State accepted that recommendation but rejected the claimant’s later proposals for a different route and for the acquisition of rights rather than full title. The claimant relied on fresh evidence, alleged unfairness, disputed the necessity of the footpath and contended that the agency lacked power under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. The central issue was whether the decision disclosed a legal or procedural flaw.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant identified no legal or procedural defect in the Secretary of State’s decision to confirm the modified order.
2. The proceedings under sections 23 and 25 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 were a statutory challenge, not an appeal by way of rehearing. The court could not entertain a belated suggestion that a better option existed where that option had not been put to the inspector or Secretary of State. Parliament had recognised the need for finality in compulsory purchase procedures, and the claimant had had the opportunity to present his case at the public inquiry.
3. There was no procedural unfairness in the post-inquiry correspondence. The parties had ample opportunity to comment on each other’s representations, and the decision letter addressed the material points raised.
4. The Secretary of State was entitled to accept the acquiring authority’s proposed modification of the plots and to reject the claimant’s alternative route. Whether the alternative offered clear benefits sufficient to justify delay was a matter of planning judgment. Disagreement with that judgment did not disclose an error of law.
5. On the statutory power issue, section 20(1) of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 authorised compulsory acquisition of land for the agency’s purposes or purposes incidental to them. Section 20(2) concerned the acquisition of new rights, but did not require the agency to use that power where full title was reasonably considered necessary for construction, engineering works, dedication of the footpath and timely delivery of the wider business park scheme. The Secretary of State was entitled to reach that factual judgment.
6. The court also ordered the claimant to pay £25,000 to the first defendant and £10,000 to the second defendant. Having regard to the guidance in the Bolton case, the unusual procedural history, the first defendant’s role in regularising the proceedings and preparing the bundles, and the duplication of work, two sets of costs were appropriate, subject to reduction.

This was a first-instance statutory challenge. Following directions, the proceedings were continued as an application under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, and the Secretary of State was joined as a defendant.