Greenwood v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

A challenge to confirmation of a compulsory purchase order under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is confined to procedural or legal error. The court does not rehear the merits. Intervention is justified only where the decision-maker’s balance is legally irrational, perverse, or affected by another error of law. The decision letter and inspector’s report should be read flexibly, as a whole and in good faith. Reasons must satisfy the approach identified in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953. Convention rights may be interfered with where lawful, necessary in the public interest and proportionate. The challenge failed because the inspector had sufficient evidential and site-based grounds for his conclusions.

The claimant, a secure tenant of a prefabricated bungalow, challenged the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order made by Bristol City Council under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985. The order supported redevelopment of a former prefab estate for new housing. An inspector recommended confirmation, excluding one plot, and the Secretary of State accepted that recommendation.

The claimant alleged that there was insufficient evidence concerning the property’s condition and that its acquisition had a disproportionate effect on her. The central issue was whether the confirmation process disclosed a procedural or legal error within section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.

1. The claim was dismissed. The statutory challenge under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 was not an opportunity to rerun the merits of the compulsory purchase order. The claimant had to establish legal irrationality, perversity or another error of law in the balance struck by the Secretary of State.
2. The inspector was entitled to conclude that the claimant’s property failed to meet the relevant housing standard. He had evidence from the Council’s witnesses, including evidence that radical works would be required, and had conducted an external site inspection. The claimant had not attended the inquiry or provided countervailing evidence.
3. The inspector was also entitled to accept that acquiring the plot was important to the redevelopment scheme. Excluding it would affect the scale, density, layout and provision of two replacement dwellings. The proposed pedestrian link was a community benefit which the inspector was entitled to regard as being in the public interest.
4. The availability of alternative accommodation and statutory compensation was relevant to the proportionality assessment. The Council had made several offers of alternative accommodation. The court accepted that Convention rights permit lawful interference with property and family rights where justified in the public interest.
5. The decision letter and inspector’s report were to be read flexibly, as a whole and in good faith. The reasons complied with the approach identified in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953. No legal defect justified quashing the order.
6. The claimant was ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs, assessed subject to a maximum of £7,000.