Belfields Ltd v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

Private-law estoppel is unavailable to restrain a local authority exercising statutory planning powers. The expression planning law is construed broadly and includes giving effect to a confirmed compulsory purchase order through a general vesting declaration. The appropriate remedy is ordinarily by judicial review based on legitimate expectation.

A clear and unambiguous assurance, reasonably relied on to the claimant’s detriment, may bind a public authority where departure would be unfair and inconsistent with no statutory duty. A conditional assurance remains capable of founding a legitimate expectation. The authority must fairly consider whether the conditions remain satisfied, give the claimant a reasonable opportunity to respond, and identify any overriding public interest before departing from the assurance.

Sefton made and obtained confirmation of a compulsory purchase order under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 in respect of land owned by Belfields. A council officer had assured Belfields that the order would be used only as a last resort if Belfields could progress its proposed development in accordance with the relevant guidance and in a timely fashion.

After the statutory appeal against confirmation failed, Sefton executed a general vesting declaration. Belfields brought a Chancery claim based on estoppel and parallel judicial review proceedings based on legitimate expectation. The preliminary issues were whether the estoppel claim was legally available, whether permission for judicial review should be granted, and whether the vesting decision was lawful.

1. Chancery claim. The estoppel claim was dismissed. The statutory compulsory purchase regime was part of the public law of planning. The machinery for giving effect to a confirmed order under the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 could not artificially be separated from the making and confirmation of the order. Following R (Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd) v East Sussex County Council [2002] UKHL 8, Flanagan v South Bucks DC [2002] EWCA Civ 690 and related authority, private-law estoppel had no role where the authority acted pursuant to statutory planning powers. The position differed where the authority acted as a private landowner.
2. Legitimate expectation. Permission was granted. The confirmation of the compulsory purchase order and exhaustion of the statutory appeal did not prevent a later challenge to the decision to activate it. Section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 conferred a discretion, rather than a duty, to execute a general vesting declaration. The policy favouring finality in compulsory purchase proceedings therefore did not exclude legitimate expectation in every case.
3. The email was capable of founding a legitimate expectation. It contained a clear and unambiguous assurance, subject to conditions rather than an impermissible qualification. Belfields had acted to its detriment, and no overriding public interest had been advanced to justify departure. The relevant question was whether the conditions were satisfied when Sefton decided to execute the declaration.
4. Sefton had not fairly addressed that question. It had not sought information from Belfields or given it a reasonable opportunity to answer the alleged failures concerning deliverability and timeliness. The inspector’s report and confirmation decision did not determine those later issues. The matters relied on by Sefton did not establish on the available material that Belfields could not develop the site or do so in time.
5. The decision also engaged article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. The required balancing exercise produced the same result: compulsory acquisition without an overwhelming reason for departing from the assurance, or proof that its conditions could not be met, was not justified. The decision to execute the general vesting declaration could not stand and a quashing order was provisionally indicated, subject to final submissions on remedy.
6. Sefton remained entitled to monitor Belfields’ performance and, after giving a fair opportunity to respond, to execute a new declaration if a condition was not being or could not be satisfied.

1. Secretary of State. The compulsory purchase order was confirmed after a public inquiry.
2. High Court, Administrative Court. Belfields’ statutory appeal against confirmation was dismissed on 21 December 2007.
3. Court of Appeal. Permission to appeal was refused after an oral hearing on 30 April 2008.
4. High Court, Chancery Division and Administrative Court. The present court dismissed the estoppel claim, granted permission for judicial review and held that the vesting decision could not stand.