Margate Town Centre Regeneration Company Ltd & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

A challenge to confirmation of a compulsory purchase order is confined to statutory vires, procedural compliance and legal error. It is not a review of the planning merits or a rehearing of the evidence. An Inspector’s planning judgments will be respected where they are reasonably open on the evidence. Reasons are adequate if, read fairly and as a whole, they enable an informed reader to understand the principal controversial issues and the conclusions reached. A compulsory purchase order may be confirmed where the public interest decisively requires the scheme, even though its precise end use or eventual implementation cannot yet be established with certainty. The acquisition must nonetheless be justified by a compelling public-interest case and proportionate interference with private rights.

The claimants, who held interests in the Dreamland site at Margate, challenged the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order made by Thanet District Council and confirmed by the Secretary of State. The order covered the former amusement park, including the cinema, scenic railway and adjoining land intended to support regeneration.

The application under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 originally advanced thirteen grounds. Four were withdrawn. The remaining grounds challenged the Inspector’s conclusions on funding, operational viability, the need to acquire all the land, the cinema, fairness, adequacy of reasons and article 1 of the First Protocol. The central issue was whether the confirmation involved any statutory, procedural or legal error warranting quashing.

1. Outcome. The application under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 was dismissed. None of the grounds established a basis for quashing the compulsory purchase order.
2. The court applied the approach in Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing & Local Government [1965] 31 W.L.R.. The court may intervene where the decision-maker acted without evidence, reached a conclusion which the evidence could not reasonably support, misinterpreted the statute, took account of an irrelevant matter, failed to consider a relevant matter or otherwise erred in law. Section 23 was not an opportunity to revisit the merits of the order.
3. The Inspector’s conclusions on construction funding and operational viability were planning judgments reasonably open on the evidence. The requirement in Circular 06/2004 for a general indication of funding intentions did not require final certainty. The Inspector was entitled to treat the three business plans as demonstrating viability, despite differences in assumptions and the need for subsidy during the establishment period.
4. The Inspector lawfully concluded that acquisition of the whole site was necessary. The site was a single planning unit governed by Policy T8. Excluding areas 5 and 6 could restrict future expansion, impede implementation of the policy and leave part of the site disused. The acquisition of the cinema was also justified as part of a longer-term strategy, notwithstanding that its precise future use had not been finalised.
5. The Inspector was entitled to prefer the Council’s evidence on grant funding and to attach limited weight to unsupported evidence of private finance and development experience. That reasoning did not demonstrate unfairness or an inconsistent approach.
6. Reading the decision letter and report as a whole, the reasons were intelligible and adequate. The compulsory acquisition represented a compelling case in the public interest and did not amount to a disproportionate interference with the claimants’ rights under article 1 of the First Protocol.