Turner v First Secretary of State & Anor

Judicial review of a compulsory purchase decision succeeds only where a legal or procedural error is established. Relevant errors may include acting outside statutory powers, breach of a procedural requirement causing substantial prejudice, failure to consider a material consideration, consideration of an irrelevant matter, or inadequate reasons.

An inspector’s evaluative conclusions about the condition of property, the prospects of voluntary improvement and the weight to be given to competing evidence are not open to challenge merely because the claimant disagrees with them. A compulsory purchase order under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 does not require the property to be empty, and occupation does not itself prevent confirmation where the statutory purpose is otherwise made out.

The claimant challenged the First Secretary of State’s decision of 15 December 2005 confirming a compulsory purchase order relating to 30 Sycamore Road, Farnborough. The order had been made under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 to enable an uninhabitable property to be repaired and returned to residential use.

An inspector had held an inquiry into the claimant’s objections. The inspector concluded that the property was not capable of decent, safe habitation, that there was significant housing need, and that the claimant was unlikely to restore the property within a reasonable period. The claimant challenged the confirmation under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, alleging errors concerning occupation, homelessness, human rights, delay and the prospects of repair.

1. Claim dismissed. The Secretary of State’s decision contained no error of law or procedure. The statutory challenge therefore failed.
2. An error of law in this context may arise where the decision-maker confirms an order outside the statutory powers, breaches a procedural requirement causing substantial prejudice, ignores a material consideration, takes account of an irrelevant consideration, or fails to give adequate reasons. None of those grounds was established.
3. Section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 permits a local housing authority to acquire houses or buildings capable of being made suitable as houses. The inspector was entitled to conclude that the property’s condition justified the order and that the council’s proposals were more likely than the claimant’s proposals to achieve restoration and re-occupation within a reasonable period.
4. The claimant’s possible occupation of the property did not invalidate the order. The inspector considered that the property need not be empty for the compulsory purchase order to be justified. The claimant’s proposed alternative accommodation and his human-rights objections did not disclose an error of law.
5. The inspector’s findings about the claimant’s ability, motivation and resources, and about the council’s efforts to secure voluntary restoration, were evaluative conclusions supported by the inquiry evidence. They were not open to legal challenge merely because the claimant disputed them.
6. Acts undertaken after confirmation of the order could not retrospectively establish an error of law in the Secretary of State’s decision. Costs were ordered in favour of the Treasury Solicitor in the sum of £6,000 plus VAT. Leave to appeal was refused, with 21 days allowed to seek permission from the Court of Appeal.