Boland v Welsh Ministers and Bridgend County Borough Council

A statutory challenge to a compulsory purchase order concerns legality, not the merits of the underlying planning decision. The court will intervene for irrationality only where the decision is perverse or no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it. It may also intervene for relevant errors, unlawful purpose, procedural unfairness, inadequate reasons, or failure to afford an opportunity to respond to a material departure from an inspector’s findings or recommendation.

Defects in a confirmation notice justify quashing only where the statutory conditions are met, including substantial prejudice caused by non-compliance with a relevant requirement. The court has no power under the statutory scheme to make a conditional order instead of quashing or refusing to quash.

The claimants challenged the Welsh Ministers’ confirmation of compulsory purchase orders made for the construction of a replacement primary school, associated drainage works and highway improvements. The challenge was brought under sections 23 and 24 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.

The claimants alleged that the decision was unreasonable because of safety, drainage and alternative-site considerations. They also alleged that the published confirmation notice was defective because it dealt with several orders and contained drafting and other irregularities. The central issues were whether the Welsh Ministers’ decision was unlawful and whether any notice defect justified quashing the orders.

1. Outcome. The application was dismissed. The first and second defendants were awarded their costs, subject to written representations on quantum by the litigant in person and subsequent responses.
2. The court’s function under sections 23 and 24 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 was supervisory. It was not permitted to substitute its own view on the planning merits for the decision entrusted to the Welsh Ministers after the inspector’s inquiries.
3. The recognised grounds of challenge included irrationality or perversity, failure to take relevant matters into account or reliance on irrelevant matters, unlawful purpose, breach of natural justice, inadequate reasons, and failure to notify parties of a material disagreement with an inspector or of new factual material.
4. The irrationality ground imposed a high threshold. The claimants’ objections concerning the steep road, traffic, drainage, pollution and alternative site amounted principally to disagreement with the merits. The inspector had given detailed reasons, including why the alternative site was not a practical planning option and why the proposed access and drainage arrangements were acceptable. The Welsh Ministers had expressly accepted those conclusions.
5. The complaints about the confirmation notices did not establish a ground for quashing. There was no prohibition on one notice dealing with several compulsory purchase orders. Even assuming defects, the claimants had not shown that the authorisation was outside the statutory power or that their interests had been substantially prejudiced by non-compliance with a relevant requirement, as required by section 24(2)(a) or (b).
6. Section 24(2) gave the court power to quash or decline to quash. It did not permit a conditional order delaying the decision for an environmental study where the study could not affect the legality of the orders.